Final Environmental Impact Report
~RUNNING FENCE
County of Sonoma, California
Draft Environmental Impact Report,
Comments and Responses
Environmental Science Associates, Inc.
‘
he
ESA-EIR-1975
October, 1975
Volumes 1 and 2
Final Environmental Impact Report
RUNNING FENCE
Prepared under contract to the
SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Santa Rosa, California
Volume I: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Volume II: Comments and Responses
(this report is printed on 100% recycled paper)
Delta Printing, Santa Clara, California
Environmental Science Associates, Inc.
1291€. Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, California 94404 415/573-8500
1390 Market Street San Francisco, California 94102 415/552-4775
8725 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90034 213/838-2221
Ais voy
Cy
' ees
u) at iy
a: A Un
1 in yt we Nh
i
i Di +) et
yi
iy f
t ey ie mh iv Mi FV wi i /
; iat a eh iN ‘i y Hi He
i i
vay aly nas
Bt if
a ne nh aah 4
0 bi it
; ae
a) W
yi a |
yy
een ey th
} f PY
i ene thy A
i 7 f
nh cy
se
ii ey mm
M3IA INVLSIG 9 -ONIMVUC S,LSILYY
ESA-EIR-1975
October,- 1975
Volume 1 of 2
Draft Environmental Impact Report
RUNNING FENCE
Prepared under contract to the
SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Santa Rosa, California
Environmental Science Associates, Inc.
1291E. Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, California 94404 415/573-8500
1390 Market Street San Francisco, California 94102 415/552-4775
8725 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90034 213/838-2221
SONOMA COUNTY RETAINED ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE ASSOCIATES TO ASSESS THE
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF
THE PROPOSED RUNNING FENCE WHICH HAS
BEEN PROPOSED BY THE RUNNING FENCE
CORPORATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES (ESA)
HAS USED ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PREPARE A
COMPLETE AND COMPETENT REPORT, BUT ESA
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR COSTS OR DAMAGES
INCURRED BY ANY CLIENT OR THIRD PARTIES
CAUSED BY DELAY OR TERMINATION OF ANY
PROJECT DUE TO JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRA-
TIVE ACTION, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTION
IS BASED ON THE FORM OR CONTENT OF THIS
REPORT OR PORTION THEREOF PREPARED BY ESA.
THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN
THE CODE OF ETHICAL PRACTICE OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS.
A COPY OF THIS CODE IS INCLUDED ON THE
FOLLOWING PAGE OF THIS REPORT.
CODE OF ETHICAL PRACTICE
WHEREAS, the goal of my endeavoristo pro- Rely upon the independent judgment of
vide a full-disclosure environmental document — an interdisciplinary team to determine
in which decision makers and the public can the impacts, define and evaluate all
place full confidence,
| WILL
Examine all relationships or actions
which could be legitimately interpreted
as a conflict of interest by clients, offi-
cials, the public, or my peers; and I will
fully disclose in the environmental
document or other writing available to
the public or the client my financial or
personal interest in the project and each
alternative, including the no-build or
null alternative.
Encourage, by every reasonable means,
environmental planning to begin in the
earliest stages of project conceptualiza-
tion.
Refuse to create an environmental
document as a justification of a project or
asa platform for opposition or advocacy.
Abstain from attempting improperly to
delay the outcome of an action or project
through the environmental document
process.
Produce an objective environmental
document; [ will not allow any of my
relationships with clients, employers, or
others to interfere with my duty to pro-
vide a full disclosure environmental
document.
Actively follow, and encourage the ob-
servance by others of, the principles of
affirmative action and equal opportunity
in all hiring and contractual activities. -
IF PREPARING a document pursuant to the
environmental document process,
1 WILL
Define a level of investigation appro-
priate to the nature and scope of the pro-
posed project or action, and its probable
impacts;
Select and use qualified persons of per-
tinent disciplines in the conduct of the
study;
Incorporate the best principles of the de-
sign and environmental planning arts in
recommending measures for mitigation
of environmental harm and enhance-
ment of environmental quality;
ASSOCIATION — of
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action, and assess short-term versus
long-term productivity with and with-
out the project or action;
Encourage public participation from the
beginning in an open, frank and produc-
tive atmosphere to stimulate democratic
consensus;
Write in a clear and accurate manner, to
achieve and remove all possible bias;
List all study participants, their qualifica-
tions and affiliations;
Cite all sources, written and oral.
Strive to create a complete, scientifically
accurate, objective environmental
document that can be defended profes-
sionally.
IF REVIEWING an environmental document,
I WILL
Insist upon review of original technical
reports or findings upon which conclu-
sions or recommendations summarized
in the environmental document are
based, to ensure they are in conformity
with applicable laws and guidelines;
Assure that the assessment reflects my
own best judgment where | am qualified
to judge, and that of independent per-
sons expert in areas beyond my capabil-
ity to assess effects deemed ‘‘signifi-
cant’;
Determine that the document is consis-
tent with all pertinent laws, ordinances,
guidelines, plans and policies to the best
of my knowledge and ability;
Certify acceptability of the environmen-
tal document only if Lam satisfied that it
has been prepared and reviewed in con-
formance with all of the above.
Therefore, I subscribe to this Code; for
Environmental, Science Associates
Signature
Paul Zigman, President
TABLE OF CONTENTS
itll
el.
Mmouanw>
AND ei Caan tepmeunehevcyeweiscctel oxavey Rakes Veremoremeial ever ekoavs ielonsceleyerersyeveRa sack
Statement sor Applacant.SODJICCtIVES.., .jc1s/<,esse,0rcse.ersfeele «¢
LOCA NOM s atepars/che ota! ataiere:aieia ny ousten elake ebelatareliolenatere’e stale Meelis
TechnicalMMes crap CLONE; sweye's ceils, avevers: los ole; avbtera is tet vine! Wiss ath ee
Legal History, Of :the: PROjSCE serais sites: sievetol oro teieaisveueletelee: 3%
Approach to “the E.0 oR's..sjeafeyepageptete soe e.s 'sbeecete lors ofthe ost octets
Environmental Setting, ‘Impact, Mitigation <)iv.'. «(slice
A.
Socal ECOMOMAC a5; .ieccisid exystoheustellaysbaiole' sails iajsys o..o1e 8 ope ae sie
AT CHACCMOBY: « avataiccsna rarcha'n Seka ts Folw accor er vial sete tete > Sad tev ieiteFedstaree
Poca rate EIS Oise iratra/cotayie yatlorstinis sysl eunpslinus’oysiave se celejsys cole a ayeusioent ote
Population and Community Characteristics..........
COMMUNITY, AT CI ELIDS Se eceisyrie\epat's ic yore sols jousiis’ sieve dchauelatnterelstalens
COMMUNAL VASO VE CCS sereyocorsyoremasnes« iss ceueue eusuvlelieiouis ie isyeie/ viele
EGONOMMUCS oye sieicicha as etolelsiaveters-/ sce bre1s e/a) 0/0) # asic ine ors soe, Slavens
Watsuiaill/ROSENG ETC cyte vara ohaeen (ove s)ois) Sie’ oj tislete sith sya istete aie vos
Tratiic/ Circulation Parking; ./.ic/s5 os evasievevereie’> oe eve
EME Ts Diy sarere) ce chee a) oveicnolovere .atevayeneusts olsl cvelorsisysierelciers etaicteferstons
WOANANHPWNNrF
+ BilOlOpIeA/ Phy SICA saith stats rete eyarets Oa oe cieiate clears oie weivce
ils
Ecology
A) MaTtNe MB TOMO Sys. cheetah era: sievalsyavers.at'e,01 «/e1aheuarsiols (oi8'eeusseyste
D)Pderrestretia I) BiOMO Ry sie m0 cie,seis sates w aya aiarere siete se ales
Somd's/ Geology / Seismology < iar aise. «islaleiese cles lste,«jare sieveleece
Water Resources...... EMoverioravelaloistetote tetera cvevsicrerenesesevevene
Air Quailkity /Meteoro logy 5: keys, ois: «seo ote wieteeteisve's. sere
INGHISE Mew ctster er sedoss uh ccuobertaiens, cucteiebene as chsbesebarettloe neces ab aor
naPWm
IMpacts Overy ewer... acts Wlet store esse) sere lake's ate.alesetele’eraverete cbereue aia
A.
B.
Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impact.............
Relationship between Local Short-term Impact
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Pong LSrmM PET OGUC ELV TE 0155615 ie ote o/0) 4, «/0)0' 9, 0.04/00 5:6, vhaie re. wets
= Irreversible Environmental’ ChangeS'.;< )<c < says « «evel v00,¢
a OLOW CN aTMaale MGs DIMPACT «6 ;c:5-c101aie dys) vistas 6100s, aha-siie! oso iehe ose:
Sil
Si
Sil
32
35
38
40
48
53
55
13
76
76
90
108
124
27
S37
143
143
143
144
144
Algernatives sto the Proposed, Project... 51. oo. cic <s\< «is che sivas 147
NTI PO MTDC ate areserane seuscy aur steWavaiekev he isy eva evtor 61 sr ioV/axat-sveLases suaioveueVensheran onesie 151
A REPORe ERED AME TaSicuot.yatatchater neve -Vorsy shel Vanover orershovel susvolouenetencterehehs 5a
B. Sources of Information (Individuals and
Ore SAMMI AeA OMS) kogsraneearchs oer eens) se ar eka\ se 5evoiccnSyoks:,cvolaleserspots staxsisks 152
Cs REGenemeen Idi Sitaesr sexcvarcpenes ster cxcter etree ern o's “ahs @ldteae ehavareuesictore 156
D. Rare and Endangered Native Plants of
Southwestern Sonoma/Adjacent Marin County............ 163
E., AmphibranssFound ain’ SonomaCounty:./..1321.- <- rs ois selene 165
Fo Repel les Found: am: SONOMA: COUNEY:.-</c.0/<'cr<ieraterels) o's avelere cele 166
G. Bards Recorded an Sonoma (COUMEY’ .\</./<sslsie/ els cisleye aia selelelole 6 167
He Mamma lis sO fs SOmOma's COUN Yi... > ais. ois,'e10 s:siwie ois eenete rs eleleis s 6 es 174
J. Visitor-Attracting Features of the RUNNING FENCE
and Their Locations/ Potential Traffic
CONGES ELON MLOMIMESY Lape ectegoccveneres sieiereconc evra roncreiokaveiclenekormrereeeys na
K. Traffic/Circulation/Parking Details
ANGMBA Cpa. Oude ercwalevenekevshs toreness sc veredh ole ole wrcvene RCloeonarceemrete 197
[ee PAMChae OL py Reporter's sats areraeitle ie oieusiele oe lois ar Meontonemele 213
Ms Ocean Engine Crean Gisyavs lies lor rotate jwiciere. ora erg enced werner cele 215
Nic Elna DIES ciara ten ede eve roskedoyensdis fate corres -o'ev vo eral javors'atehisvaroteucteoretayate 231
TABLE
FIGURE
Fronti
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
TABLES
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
OF CONTENTS
S
spiece
I PAKea LOCACTOME sc ochevensrore os \ete ay srenece toys 96) 6 oveseresyopeteece
Zee ELON ECE ME OCA OM aterieieieiaisre ovis eisiavelsioieloieiane tersneiejieratnc
SP LLOPOSed RUNNING ehHNGHmROULC a. sie rercielsisiels a' cleieleeiereie
Te eAGCIS ty Sy Drawn yea GlOSC—UD Ivalice: etelale els seri cioioieieisior elale
5) plypicall Interior span) Nomenclature... 2... see
Oy Local” Road INGEWOTKKS are so 6. 5.6 5 oie repo, oisailor ole raslererenatons: auctei ate
7 Elevation of Marine Biology Study Area...........
8 Sensitive Plant vAneadsias sc acc ce ete eietele o)orclts' 6! ove ayevowrs
DRSESLOPES Is caele rare ctersleceteve sasers, ssiaenar.shel ore: jars! acai wleusrarsrorereneress
NOM Geology, cans SOMES ia cistetaic, 6 cie\eiois) level siniele|e ele orsisyshoreretaiere
J-1 U.S. and State Routes, and
Coastal (ReereatdonvATea’s 55%. ciac 1s: ofc /te; oie ane oleiere orelevsiere
J-Z2eCincuiliata ong CharacterlStdCS acres suse lelelelelelensleheiereletele
JoSeEenCeMVIewSeandsdlnaitct CaHazardSmicrccvicie cterersteieisiereste
Ol OCall’g Road JNCEWONK acces crate ore srercheievevess c*csoretere: vevorereiers
Level of Service, Two-Lane Rural Road............
- Fuel Consumption in Access and Viewing...........
3 Rainfall Means and Extremes,
Santa Rosa’, VOSWaMO MS ats visisyene ersicieisl aneseueiesetevenevepelelere
4 Oxidant, Carbon Monoxide, and Suspended
Particulate Experience, 1973, 1974. 22s .200scccsc
Dust Emissions from Unpaved Roads. .........0<-s-.
Peak Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentration..........
Noise Impact of the Vehicular Traffic
Generated by the Proposed
RUNNING CEENGE SE LOW CGE oicis (6 onc/ofate ere, o40 eVolotnl <) overere sioner
K-1 Traffic Counts, August 30 & September 22, 1975...
K-2 Assumptions: Visitor Access and Viewing..........
K-3 Level of Service, Two-Lane Rural Road............
Nr
NINN
TOPE
140
200
205
207
vii
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Running Fence is planned by the artist, Christo, as a temporary
construction, in place for a maximum of two weeks. It is proposed by the
applicant, the Running Fence Corporation, to be 18 feet high and more than
24 miles long. The structure would be essentially an assembly of 18-feet
by 62-feet white nylon panels, supported by cables and poles, the latter
anchored in soil or rock. The ocean portion would consist of one nylon
panel 300 feet long, tapering from 18 feet high at the land end to 2 feet
"high'"' at the anchored seaward end.
The route starts in the vicinity of Penngrove in Sonoma County, and
follows a curving westerly path to the vicinity of, or into, the Pacific
Ocean at a point about midway between the Estero Americano and the Estero
de San Antonio, in northwestern Marin County. The land portion of the
Fence proper would be on private property only, with one possible exception
(Estero Road right-of-way, in Marin County).
Construction is proposed to start in April 1976, with the distribution
of materials on the properties along the route. The Fence would be in
place for viewing during a maximum of two weeks in September 1976; it
would then be disassembled within 4-5 weeks, so that no trace of the con-
struction per se would remain after October 31, 1976.
Many mitigating features have been designed into the current plans, some
as part of the original design, others resulting from conditions set by
public agencies, particularly Sonoma and Marin Counties, at an earlier
stage of approval. Mitigation plans and further suggestions for mitigation
appear here at the appropriate points in the summary of project impacts.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
In this summary, the emphasis is not on the potential adverse impacts
(which are discussed in detail in the text of the EIR), but rather on the
residue of significant adverse impacts remaining after the implementation
of the applicant-accepted mitigation features. Beneficial impacts also are
summarized. Residual impacts and mitigation features are generally presented
in the order in which they are discussed in the text. In general, the
major significant adverse impacts arise from the large numbers of visitors
expected to be attracted to the area during the two-week viewing period.
There are no known archaeological sites along the route. Since con-
struction activities include no excavation, they are not likely to damage
any unknown sites. Nevertheless, the permits authorizing the project should S-1
contain conditions or safeguards, such as a performance bond, to assure _
that potential sites are protected from damage or destruction, should arti-
facts or other evidence be discovered during construction.
The major increased burden on local community services due to the
presence of the Running Fence will arise from the impacts of visitors
attracted to the area. Additional police services will be required, to
control traffic and thus minimize congestion, and also to prevent trespass
on private property, with its risk of fire initiation. Additional fire-
protection services will also be required. The applicant has developed a
program for training and deploying civilian monitors, who would guide visi-
tors onto any private property made available, and discourage trespass in
general. The applicant also plans to hire off-duty police/sheriff personnel,
for traffic control. In the event of major problems, the Sheriff's Depart-
ments of both Marin and Sonoma Counties would have the responsiblity to lend
aid. The applicant has agreed to pay the cost of all such services, including
those of the California Highway Patrol. Potential fire initiation during
construction is mitigated by a series of measures planned by the applicant.
These include the provision of fire extinguishers, spark arresters, and skid
plates on construction vehicles. The aforementioned monitors will be trained
by the California State Division of Forestry in the control of small grass
fires. The applicant has agreed to pay the cost of additional fire-fighting
services provided by local fire departments. However, costs of any Services
provided by the California State Division of Forestry cannot be reimbursed
by the applicant, unless he is directly responsible for them. Potential
interference with bus transportation to the local schools, particularly
during the children's return home in the afternoons, will be partially miti-
gated by the traffic-control measures above. The Running Fence Corporation
plans to provide for the stationing of an ambulance in the Valley Ford area
at such times and location as will be determined by further consultation
with public-safety authorities. It is suggested that, in order to keep
litter to a minimum, plans include placement of waste containers at
stopping points along the roadway network; also, the Fence removal phase
could include roadside clean-up by the monitors. The Sonoma County conditions
include posting of a $150,000 bond by the applicant "...to insure compliance
with the conditions of this permit...".
The proposed project is expected to have no adverse net impact on the
finances of local governments or local public-service agencies. In addition,
the project would provide employment for local people. Fence materials would
be given to property owners who have easement agreements with the applicant.
One of the trucks with flotation tires would be given to Sonoma County,
while a bio-kinetic machine (which converts animal wastes into animal feed)
would be given to Marin County. Christo's past practice has been to use
funds from his personal sales of drawings (generated as a result of his
large-scale projects) to support later projects. Thus, the project cannot
be considered to be a commercial venture in the usual sense. Nevertheless,
there is no legal guarantee that all future income, for example from the
sale of drawings of the Running Fence project, will go to the Running Fence
Corporation or its successors for future large-scale projects, nor is it
certain that the net worth of the Corporation at any time will not revert to
its principal stockholders, including the Christos.
The chief potential adverse visual and aesthetic impact is the blockage,
or the partial blockage, of close-in and panoramic views from residences
along the Fence route. Another is the dominance (as opposed to view block-
age) of the Fence as an element of the close-in views from some residences.
Areas where these can occur include the Penngrove sections on the eastern
flank of Meacham Hill and the Happy Acres subdivision, on the southeast side
of Meacham Road.
Traffic attracted by the Fence is the main source of unavoidable adverse
environmental impact. Although most of the direct and secondary effects
(which include congestion, air-quality impairment, noise and energy consump-
tion) are temporary, those associated with congestion and the potential
interference with emergency traffic can be significant. As many as 270,000
visitors might be expected (probability significantly less than 50-50) during
the two-week display period; on the peak day, 30,000 people (10,000 autos)
might be expected. Overloading of the access and viewing road network,
including sections of U.S. Highway 101, could occur, particularly on the
second (peak) Sunday of the display period. Such overloading could lead to
stop-and-go flow, traffic backups onto the freeway, cars running out of
gasoline, boiling radiators, traffic accidents, and entrapment of emergency
vehicles. Highway 101 appears to be the controlling element of the road net-
work. On the reasonable assumption that interest will develop as the display
period proceeds, so that visitor traffic on the first days of display (planned
to be weekdays) will be relatively light, there appears to be time, after the
erection of the Fence, to assess the likelihood that visitor traffic will
reach capacity levels, and thus to implement one or more contingency plans
for handling high volumes of visitor traffic. The applicant has agreed to
be responsible for the costs of developing such plans, and of their implemen-
tation. Some elements have already been agreed to; these include, as noted,
the provision of monitors, the hiring of off-duty Sheriff's deputies, and
the reimbursement of the costs of provision of traffic-control services by
the County Sheriff's Departments and the California Highway Patrol. The
Santa Rosa Area Office of the California Highway Patrol has the ultimate
responsibility for decisions about traffic mitigation. Captain Eric Denton
of that Office has the authority to require removal of the Running Fence, or
any portion thereof, should he deem it necessary. The applicant has agreed
to honor such a request immediately.
The principal consumption of energy will result from travel by the
visitors to the Fence. A worst-case analysis, assuming maximum reasonably
possible visitor volume for the full two-week display period, with all visi-
tor autos traversing the full length of the Fence route in both directions,
indicated total fuel consumption of about 1.4 million gallons of gasoline
and about 350,000 gallons of jet fuel (the latter based on the assumption
that one percent of the visitors would travel to the area by air, with an
average one-way trip of 1500 miles). No allowance was made for dual-purpose
trips, or for the possibility that local drivers would be using their autos
for other recreational purposes if they were not traveling to the Fence.
$-3
Implications of the Fence for ecological resources are discussed first with
respect to the intertidal portions of the coastal zone part of the route.
Intertidally, the area is similar to many hundreds of like sites located
along the California coastline. It is not of unique biological significance.
The changes to take place are all of short duration and should impact only
the deeper waters where the anchors are to be set, and perhaps a small portion
of the offshore surface waters. This impact will be minor as well as temporary
The presence of two sea anchors for a two-week period is likely to have no
long-term biological effect, relative to the natural phenomena which occur
all of the time. While the placement of the final on-shore support pole
might possibly cause some erosion and sloughing of rock or dirt onto the
upper intertidal area, there already is and has been considerable erosion
and sloughing of cliff material onto the intertidal. The area,biologically,
is one in which the present communities have either adjusted to this natural
phenomenon or are displaced as a result of it. The possible addition of a
minuscule amount of additional erosion is considered to be irrelevant. The
conclusions as to the insignificance of long-term effects on the biotic
communities apply even in the unlikely event of storm damage during the
September display period.
On the land portion of the Fence route (including that within the
Coastal Zone boundary), no rare or endangered plants were found during
the September 1975 field visit; this does not prove that such species
do not exist along the route. Potentially sensitive areas include the
coastal bluff and its immediate vicinity; freshwater marshy or vernally wet
areas; and rocky outcrops which have been protected from grazing. The major
potential for damage to sensitive areas would occur during the construction
and removal phases. This has been partially mitigated by features built
into the applicant's design, including use of trucks with flotation tires
and special techniques (winching of equipment, use of hand tools) on the
steeper slopes, plus plans for extensive training of construction and removal
crews, and agreement to abide by decisions of County-approved biologists
and geologists accompanying the crews. Potential biological damage from
failure of the Fence during its display period is partially mitigated by
extensive design and testing, including full-scale tests, of the panel/pole/
cable/anchor system. The terrestrial-biology consultants strongly recommend
a subsequent field survey to be carried out in the spring of 1976, when rare
or endangered plant species would become evident, if present along the route.
They recommend also that hillside seep areas, especially along the coastal
bluff, be avoided, even by foot traffic during construction. Similar
recommendations apply to rocky outcrops further inland. Methods for operating
near such areas are detailed. In general, they recommend the avoidance of
work in any area while it is still damp following the winter rains. With
respect to the ptotection of animal life, the terrestrial-biology consultants
recommend that passages be left at certain specific points in the route so
that deer and other vertebrates can continue their normal movements during
the two-week display period. They recommend also that the Fence panels not
be put in place across certain creeks; in fact, that not even the top cable
: be suspended at such locations. Further recommendations include the attach-
S-4 ment of visible strips to Fence cables before the mounting of panels, to
prevent danger to birds (along likely flyways), and the delay of the display
period until the end of the Coastal Deer Season. A final recommendation is
that construction be begun last, and the Fence removed earliest, in the por-
tion of the route between Valley Ford and the coast. This is actually part
of the applicant's plan. The terrestrial-biology consultants conclude that
because of the ephemeral nature of the Fence, and on the assumption that the
mitigation suggestions will be followed, the biological effects of the Fence
will be only temporary, aside from possible erosion damage.
Potential effects on soils have been presented under biological impacts
above. It should be pointed out that field reconnaissance by the applicant's
engineers led to a new alignment of the route at Fence Segment 11, to avoid
an existing landslide. Aside from energy consumption, associated principally
with visitor travel, there will be little consumption of resources, since
most of the materials for the Fence are surplus, and all will be supplied
to the easement providers, for further use or for sale. Also, plans are to
cut all anchor cables at ground level and drive them at least 18 inches below
grade, backfilling the holes with sand, so that little visible evidence of
the Fence will remain along the route.
Mitigation measures designed into the project plan appear to minimize
surface-soil erosion, even in the sensitive coastal bluff area. There appears
to be little likelihood of runoff (sedimentation) problems. Thus, surface-
water quality is unlikely to be adversely effected.
Air-quality impacts are expected to be minimal. In no event are area
suspended-particulate (dust) standards likely to be exceeded because of the
project. A worst-case analysis of pollutants produced by visitor traffic
on the peak viewing day indicated that it is highly unlikely that such
traffic will cause local violations of the national standards for carbon
monoxide. This judgment holds even if there are intermittent traffic jams
along area roadways. It appears, further, that such traffic will have only
a very small, and probably unmeasurable, impact on the smog level in the
air basin.
Construction noise would be perceivable at many of the residences along
the Fence route. It could produce levels that would strongly interfere with
both outdoor and indoor residential activities at some homes along the route.
For a (hypothetical) residence immediately next to the Fence, such levels
would persist for a maximum of three days. For most of the 20 to 30 residences
affected, such interference would persist for less than one day. A worst-
case analysis of noise produced by visitor traffic indicated that noise
levels along local roads could increase by up to 23 decibels (dBA), about
a 5-fold increase in perceived noise. The greatest increases would occur
in the now most-quiet areas. The effect on the Pepper Road portion of the
Fence route, for example, would be to raise noise levels to about those now
experienced along Petaluma/Valley Ford Road west of the Highway 1 intersection
(near Valley Ford).
S-5
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM IMPACT AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
As noted, increased traffic, a local short-term impact, will affect
the local road network for a maximum of two weeks, producing the most
significant of all the impacts of the proposed project. Noise may increase
with traffic increase during the viewing phase, and air quality will change
(but not significantly) with addition of fuel pollutants. In addition,
vegetation, if damaged by the construction and removal activities and by the
movement of the Fence'’s materials when in place, is expected to return to
normal state within a few years. Therefore, the above impacts can be con-
sidered as local short-term impacts, which would not interfere in the long-
term with the land and its use, the functioning of the road network, or the
lives of local residents.
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Soil cores removed for placemént of Fence poles and replaced with
sand (as well as anchor holes backfilled with sand) create an irreversible
environmental change; one that is somewhat comparable to the usual farm
operation of digging post holes for fences. Grasses and herbs are expected
to grow back to normal within a few years. If further landsliding should
be induced in the coastal bluff area, this would represent an irreversible
change; however, its effect on life in the intertidal areas below would be
temporary, in the context of the natural processes now occurring in those
zones.
GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACT
The event of the viewing of the Running Fence, together with the
associated media publicity, will have brought much attention (both nation-
wide and worldwide) to the Sonoma/Marin dairy-farm landscape. The viewing
phase will also bring many visitors (possibly as many as 30,000 on a peak
day), some of whom may be attracted by the numerous FOR SALE signs in the
area. The low-quality agricultural soil, lack of water and sewer service,
high land price, high taxes for non-agricultural-preserve land, and
restrictions on building in the coastal zone, will tend to discourage land
sales beyond the normal rate of such transactions. Thus growth, beyond
current rates, is not a likely outcome of the project.
S-6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. APPLICANT
The applicant for Christo's Running Fence+is the Running Fence
Corporation (formerly the Valley Curtain Corporation)*, the officers
of which are:
8 Jeanne-Claude Javacheff, President and Treasurer
® Christo Javacheff, Assistant Secretary
° Scott Hodes, Secretary and Legal Counsel
The business activity of the Running Fence Corporation is to
foster public appreciation of fine art.** The products of service
are works of art.** The artist of the works is Christo Javacheff,
known generally as ''Christo"'. .
*Incorporated January 8, 1971.
**U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, 1974, for Running
Fence Corporation.
B. | STATEMENT OF APPLICANT'S OBJECTIVES
Christo, speaking for the Running Fence Corporation, provides the
following: : ;
"The Running Fence is a work of art. It can be described in
quite simple terms: 24 miles of white, translucent fabric, running
over the hills, both emerging from and disappearing into the sea.
But the Running Fence project is more complex than this. It exists
in time--three years of shared life experience. And it exists in
space--a particular space in Northern California.
The choice of California for the project was inevitable, born
with the project itself. California has the richest variety of
texture of anywhere in the United States. Our site was carefully
chosen after we explored the coast-line from Mexico to Oregon. The
path of the Fence runs from 101, a major highway, and it runs in
the vicinity of many small roads from which the Fence can be seen
without trespass or traffic hazard. The path includes urban areas
and suburban, and cattle ranches, and dairy farms, and the Pacific
shore along which so much of California living is done.
I would like people to understand that the Running Fence repre-
sents not just three years of my life, but three years of team-work,
three years of study with engineers, surveyors, botanists, geologists.
The Running Fence project also involves politicians and businessmen,
supervisors and artists, students and--especially--the local ranchers
and landowners. Often their first approach to the project was one of
caution, distrust; but in the great majority of cases, the feelings
have become enthusiasm and support. This communal energy has become
an important part of the Running Fence project.
The financing has been generated by the project, and has been
raised in its entirety from the sale of drawings and collages. And
the financing will, as with projects in the past, be spent on the:
project. But what is important is the people, and the land. The
Running Fence will bring out the contours of the Sonoma hills and the
seashore, the changing of the weather. The Running Fence is a
celebration of the landscape.
The physical reality of the Running Fence will be a beautiful
one. The fabric is a fragile material, like clothing or skin. And,
like the structures the nomads built in the desert, it will have the
special beauties of impermanence. The fabric is a light-conductor
for the sunlight, and it will give shape to the wind. It will go
over the hills and into the sea, like a ribbon of laisht:"
LA
C. LOCATION
Sonoma County and Marin County, on the coast of northern
California, are two of the nine counties that comprise the San
Francisco Bay Area. Sonoma and Marin Counties are known for their
scenic coast, forests, dairy land, and other agricultural areas.
Christo's Running Fence has been proposed by the applicant,
the Running Fence Corporation, to reach from Meacham Hill*, east of
U.S. Highway 101 and north of Petaluma, to Valley Ford in southern
Sonoma County; then across Americano Creek*and northern Marin County
into the Pacific Ocean--a total of about 24 miles. The currently
proposed route is shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. More specifically,
the Fence project would be located upon 48 private parcels (under 42
Signatures**) within Sonoma County (about 20 miles of route) in the
vicinity of Highway U.S. 101, south and north of Railroad Avenue;
Stony Point Road; Meacham Road*; Pepper Road; Walker Road; Petaluma/
Valley Ford Road; and upon eight private parcels (under ten signa-
tures**) in Marin County (about four miles of route) in the vicinity
of Franklin School Road, Marsh Road, and Estero Road.
The original routing of the Marin County portion of the project
has been revised; this Environmental Impact Report discusses the new
alignment. The routing of the project in Sonoma County, and the
properties which it traverses, remain essentially as originally proposed.
At the time of preparation of this Draft EIR, the final locations
of two segments of the project route in Marin County have not been
defined with certainty. These two segments are:
(1) The location of the Running Fence over, or around, the
Gaver property which has frontage on Estero Road;
(2) The western terminus of the Running Fence.
The alternate locations of the two segments of the project are
shown on Figure 3. These alternatives are discussed at the appropriate
places in the EIR text.
*The spelling of 'Meacham'' used in the U.S.G.S. topographic
(quadrangle) maps (for both Meacham Hill and Meacham Road) has been
adopted here. The Road is spelled 'Mecham'' on some road maps and in
official Sonoma County records. Strictly speaking, ''Estero'' refers to
the estuarine (tidal-influenced) portion of the creek. In this EIR,
the portions of the waterways outside the coastal zone (1000 yards upstream
of the tidal influence)will be referred to as Americano Creek and San
Antonio (Stemple) Creek, while the coastal-zone portions will be referred
to as Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio.
**Several parcels may be owned by one owner, whereas several owners may
own only one parcel; therefore, the number of parcels does not coincide with
the number of signatures. Christo, personal communication, August 25, 1975.
> Re
if oe
Meet be
h 64%.
- Seer
a
Ae? .s nee abe ae
hs -
4 ¥
+
ao wii fs
Ma Safina: ts
ed ole
errant PPS, Ge WF dw res
PieAni) in ES. 3
PATER AEAeeey 6) 6
gh ens
oP rv
| pe a
ol Litas
i oe
rhs
aie
om? al
1a
1°7L8 OR Ov ORS
Ot hit inn
oa) ite Ng
Colusa Yuba
Sutter
Placer
Sacramento
Stanislaus
Santa Clara
Merced
oO 20miles “x San
en ns FILS A
Benito
Monterey
waras
ow
FIGURE 1 AREA LOCATION
uotbay Aeg 4S “S9SN :8d4Nos
NOILV9O1 LOACOUd = ¢@ JuNdI4
ee
ule
mach Sarre = :
JNNOY /~ oo.
{
uruun [aaa |
5 |
> J —Spe | ; | ‘
- —+— ore wa)
Se T |
(Calin Ts el = 95 a= at as
= ih Heustory ‘ ; »\ wea
alan yey a] mou i ; '
2s x i] ) . i:
f
ke
sgonp BONA.
S
Seas ) = | % he as
teal =a) je 5 , | y 4 7
<< \ é t A J ' (7c > }
~ \ 1 ee s ‘ -
3 : : =
= 5 ae
ay = oe a |
P ae \
Soe \
; more : ae NE
= (| 7 = oe &
of: aq ye A j \ , 7 { & s ( 2
ie > ce, | J 9 ka?
(
ee Were
=\\— AY 7 vain
| “kA /
ss y — s
, se , *
\ ; ~ ”
AW ea \ ;
tet te ee
——— NS ees 5 cd = =~ =
\ SRN ee
aS
} ee ; pou ce wd. ig re Sn,
EAT TEL REM Ee is | ae
| a Om or tore vel ’ ae es
y
« a SS
i bd RR
wet « i v '
- i . 4 aed Lee |
Z xa : oy toa vs MA
: Cae y
‘i ‘ a f
BH"
te‘ ete!
wT ee rh
——— =o y'é Si
FIGURE 3
ee ee) oa asia a Eee iz ee
TENTATIVE LOCATIONS
, SUBJECT TO LAND OWNER Ne
5; AND/OR COUNTY APPROVAL‘
——— Proposed location Running Fence
(Marin and Sonoma Counties shown in 23 segments)
seceee Tentative location subject
to permit
eames Corrected alignment (Segment 11)
ao Boundary of California Coastal
Zone Conservation Commission
______ Existing property lines
2000°
1S
Pc
FIGURE 3. PROPOSED runwninG FENCE ROUTE
5 ple
-
fos -af oS |
Gj (CA
:
\
maroon]
RE
ay
Sy —
wi:
D. | TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
The Running Fence, a temporary construction (two weeks maximum
duration), is proposed to be 18 feet high and more than 24 miles long,
with its white nylon panels following an undulating inland path
through Sonoma and Marin Counties to the vicinity of,or into, the
ocean. Some of the relevant facts relating to this project are as
follows.
ALIGNMENT
The general location of the Fence route was chosen after a
survey of the entire Pacific Coast by the artist.* His criteria
included artistic considerations, such as visual impact and relation
to terrain, as well as the presence of a cross-county road network
to provide for visual access. This area was chosen from among several
candidate areas.
It is the intention of the applicant that the Running Fence be
visible from public roads. No stopping or parking area has been
proposed as part of the project. However, some of the ranchers
involved with the project have indicated an intention to provide
parking facilities. It is not the intent of the applicant to
encourage maximum visitation to the Running Fenvce,*
Alignment of the Running Fence will be, with one possible excep-
tion, entirely on private property (with easement agreements)**. The
easement upon which the Fence is to be constructed is 40 feet wide.
The one possible exception to this alignment principle--an alternative
proposal of location within the Estero Road (Marin County) right-of-way,
to substitute for the route traversing the Gaver property, on the
Fence's way to the coast in Marin County (see Figure 3).
The Fence will break at roads, stopping before reaching public
right-of-way and continuing again on private property. It will also
break at farm roads and animal crossings (but the top cable will
continue over private farm roadways at 15-18 feet above ground), and
span streams, providing animal access corridors under the Fence.
Little space is expected beneath the Fence except in very uneven
ground or over ravines.
The Fence route has been designed to avoid sensitive or hazardous
areas.* Furthermore, field inspection has resulted in modifications
in the specific location of the structure, to avoid additionally
discovered sensitive areas (i.e., landslides)* (see Figure 35, Seg. 11).
*Christo, personal communication, July 28, 1975.
**See sample Easement Agreement in Appendix N.
**+Field reconnaissance with Mr. Burr Heneman, August 11, 1975. 11
12
MATERIAL
The Running Fence panels will consist of a heavy, white nylon
fabric [165,000 (square) yards, or 2270 fabric sections, each 18 feet
high, and about 68 feet wide], hung from a 9/16 inch steel cable
strung between steel poles (2270 poles, each 3% inches in diameter,
160 pounds). The poles (21 feet long), generally 62 feet apart,
will be embedded three feet in the ground and braced laterally with
guywires and earth (or rock) anchors at approximately right angles
to the line of the Fence, using no concrete. The grommeted woven
nylon panels will be suspended from the top cable and the upright
poles by clips that are designed to release at winds in the neighbor-
hood of 60 mph while heavier clips on the bottom cable will hold the
panel at ground level. The lower edge of the fabric will be attached
to a bottom cable (9/16 inch) anchored to the ground at about twenty
foot intervals, and at each pole. Construction details are shown in
Figures 4 and 5S.
The fabric is white "Nylon 6,6'', manufactured by J.P. Stevens &
Company, Inc., New York, from synthetic fiber produced by E.I. Dupont
de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware. The "Textile World
Manmade Fiber Chart 1972"' (McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1972) describes the
effects of heat upon this fabric as follows: ''Sticks at 445°F. Melts
at 480°F to 500°F. Yellows slightly at 300°F when held for five hours".
According to the manufacturer, the fabric is self-extinguishing in
that it melts away from flame. Although the fabric may remain ignited
temporarily, it is consumed relatively slowly, and in the case of the
Running Fence might create a fire break rather than a fire hazard.*
PHASES**
According to the applicant's plans, construction will take about
five months, and will commence in April 1976. It will require a num-
ber of trips over the easement by the trucks carrying equipment, men,
and materials. Viewing of the completed Running Fence will be during
two weeks in September 1976.* Removal will be during late September
and the month of October 1976.
*California State Division of Forestry (Sonoma Ranger Unit)
letter of January 21, 1975 to Mr. George Kovatch, Planning Director,
Sonoma County. Also, H.E. (Marty) Abell, URS Research Company,
personal communication, July 24, 1975.
**Burr Heneman, A & H Builders, Project Coordinator for Running
Fence.
*\fter the Labor Day weekend.
dN-4SO1D -ONIMWYC S,LSTLYV 6b SJUNDIS
"1 geo p= LS TOs BAY rey Puy
|
|
A100 A" Oey 98 w Sag
PTR Te aS 104 0) FFD waasn 10 OAD HIM ru90
[4¥e ) 20 49 ON
i Ae oe Alicia dN
UTI ACH: Bf (2%/ OF 2°61)
: \4
“g Hy 7 HS
A Prd ts 97 tet Spay e) PIT mt Blow 4 |
fons at np 9 Pit Swim ws Mm
ON aap maesieg — Sonny 2s see Loe A
\
Se
TY? whee) 24 Des #ONO LINES LEO
—
296s pees
Soe
etme tinea
ves cere
drawer se The. a
A A Ah ed) weal
wer " jm FIM AE “ad rsd
Eee
PF es tf
13
CABLE SAG (VERTICAL
AT M/DSPAK)
JOP CABLE (TC)
POLE
BOTTOM HOOKS
BOTTOM CABLE (BC) \,
BOTTOM PIGTAIL is
\ BOTTOM ANCHOR
SHOE ANGLES
LATERAL GUY (16)
GUY PIGTAIL :
GUY ANCHOR ~—>~<«>
FIGURE 5 TYPICAL INTERIOR SPAN: NOMENCLATURE
14
April +
April +
June +
September
October
Phase I - Distribution of Materials:
Poles, guywires, anchors, upper and lower cables, and
shoe angles will be distributed starting in April and
continuing for several months. Work will begin in the
drier areas, generally in the eastern portion of the
Fence route, and progress to the wetter areas, which are
generally in the coastal portion.
Phase II - Anchor-driving and Hole punching:
Anchor-driving and hole-punching will begin in April.
To protect holes before poles are erected, holes will
be covered with two shoe angles (two-foot lengths of
steel angle which are to be fastened to the poles at
ground level to distribute the weight of the materials
on the surface of the ground in order to keep the poles
from sinking)* (see Figure 5).
Phase III - Placement of Poles and Cables:
In June, erection of poles and simultaneous placement
of top, bottom, and guy cables will begin.
Phase IV - Distribution and Hanging of Fabric Panels:
Distribution of fabric panels, folded and enclosed in
bags made of the same fabric, will begin about three
days before the display period. Hanging of the fabric
panels, furled on the poles, will begin two days before
the display period. All panels will be unfurled on the
first day of the display period.
Phase V - Cleanup and Removal:
Dismantling will begin at the ocean to minimize distur-
bances in that sensitive area. All materials and litter
will be removed (except for anchor cables, which will be
cut off near ground level, then driven under ground to a
minimum depth of 18 inches below the surface of the ground).
All holes will be backfilled. This phase will take 4-5
weeks through about October 31, 1976, starting with the
*Equipment to be used would include six three-quarter-tor trucks,
four of which are equipped with hole-punching and anchor-installing
equipment; one flat-bed truck, and several moto-mules. In some areas,
much of this work must be done by men without the aid of trucks. 15
16
sensitive areas (coastal area, wet areas, and Meacham
Hill/Highway 101 area) and finishing with the less
sensitive areas. The reverse sequence will have been
used in the construction phase.
The viewing phase comes between Phases IV and V, of course. In
case of emergency (such as traffic blockage), fabric and cables can
be dismantled in one day by crews of the Running Fence Corporation
starting with the most-sensitive areas. Each fabric panel can be
removed in 2-3 minutes, based on recent testing (at Jameson Trucking,
Santa Rosa, August 1975)*. In case of strong winds, the panels will
detach from poles at winds of 45 mph and top hooks will detach at
winds of 60 mph. In the coastal water portion of the route, panels
are designed to fasten by top hooks only (see below).
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION DETAILS**
Christo's Running Fence was engineered by URS/The Ken R. White
Company under the direction of Ernest C. Harris, Ph.D., Registered
Professional Engineer, State of Colorado; Sargis S. Safarian, Regis-
tered Civil Engineer, State of California; and Gernot D. Appelt,
Registered Civil Engineer, State of California. Engineers represent-
ing the engineering firm, Unipolycon, include: James Fuller, John
Thomson, and D. Zagoroff. The final design has been developed through
several stages of structural design and analysis, laboratory tests and
full-scale field tests. This testing and analysis allowed the design
to be approved by the artist, the engineers and the contractor
(A & H Builders).
Evaluation of the design determined not only at what wind speed
the system failed but, more importantly, how the system would fail.
Thus, the final design incorporates points of controlled weakness to
insure ''safe'' failure.
In this situation, ''safe'' connotes protection of the
environment and protection of the structure. The designed failure
mode would simply allow the fabric to disconnect from both the
poles and the overhead support cable and to lie on the ground at gusts
of slightly above 60 mph. This would significantly reduce the
wind resistance to permit the structure to withstand tne 20 psf wind
loading required by the Sonoma County Building Code. Fabric and
*Mr. Burr Heneman, A & H Builders, telephone communication,
August 21, 1975.
**This section is based on engineering details provided by the
project engineer. (See Appendix N.) and on information provided by
the applicant and by the contractor (Personal communication, Mr.
Burr Heneman, October 17, 1975).
structure would remain intact, allowing the fabric panel to be
put back in place to complete the viewing period. Failure at the
lateral and upper hooks will prevent overloading of anchors and
poles, which could otherwise disrupt the soil. Even if some poles
were lost, their strength is less than that of the soils so that
they would bend before disrupting the soil. Also, the anchors and
guys are the strongest structural elements; thus, anchor withdrawal
is extremely unlikely. Each anchor will have been tested to working
load when driven.
The final structure design for Christo's Running Fence is in
principle quite simple. Newly developed equipment will punch out
cores of soil about 34 to 4 inches in diameter and 3 feet deep.
Steel pipe 34 inches in diameter will be placed 3 feet into the
ground to stand 18 feet above grade. Standard spacing of poles will
be 62 feet. These poles will be guyed laterally with cables attached
to soil anchors driven 36 inches below the surface and tested to
working load. A top cable supported on the poles will be adjusted
to match the curve designed into the top of each panel. The bottom
of the Fence will be secured by a bottom cable attached to the bases
of the poles and by soil anchors every 20 feet. Calculated and
tested component strength and performance have been verified and/or
modified to give the structure the required performance character-
istics. For example, free-standing poles were found to sink into
the ground under design loads, so shoe angles were added and tested
for load-carrying capacity. A simple change in assembly sequence
corrected another deficiency; lifting of the top cable occurred
under certain wind loading, but placing the lateral guy cable over
the top of the top cable provided the required hold down. All of
these problems were discovered and corrected during the engineering
testing phase.
A different design will be used in the ocean segment of the
Running Fence. There is no construction within the intertidal
itself. In addition, the pole closest to the ocean will be located
near the bottom of a grassy slope which ends at a lip approximately
20 feet above the high tide line of the study area. That pole will
be situated far enough on the landward side of the lip so that the
guy anchors running seaward from the pole will be set in solid
ground. These anchors will be set back from the lip so as not to
contribute to sloughing. The anchors will be tested to working
load. No anchors or anchor cables will be any closer to the inter-
tidal zone than the top of the lip.
From the top of the last pole (approximately 40 feet above the
intertidal) , the top cable (7/8ths inch wire rope) will run seaward
approximately 550 feet, where it is attached to the apex of a V-shaped
bridle. The legs of the bridle extend seaward another 450 feet to
anchors, the type of anchor to be determined by the type of bottom
(Danforth 200-H, if the bottom is sand). The bridle is also of
7/8ths inch wire rope. A flotation buoy at the junction of the top
cable and bridle will be used to give the top cable the proper
sag for display of the fabric panel. The top cable and bridle will
be marked with any buoys required by the Corps of Engineers or the
Coast Guard.
During the maximum two-week display period in September, a
300-foot long nylon panel, tapered from a width of 18 feet where it
is attached to the first pole at the top of the cliff to a width of
about two feet at the seaward end, will be pulled out on the ©
top cable on blocks. The bottom of this loose- footed panel will
be weighted to keep it vertical in normal winds. The bottom of the
fabric panel will be under water a maximum of two feet below MLLW*
toward the seaward end. Crossing the intertidal zone, the bottom of
the fabric panel will be several feet above the water at high tide.
In short, the only changes to be made to the subtidal area are
1) the deposition of two sea anchors 1000 feet offshore; 2) the
presence of a wire rope through a small portion of the offshore
water colum; and 3) the suspension of a nylon panel into the surface
waters of the offshore area. No changes are planned for the inter-
tidal area itself. The fail-safe features of the ocean segment are
summarized by the Engineers as follows:**
e "The ocean portion is attached at the top edge only,
so that it can withstand 20 psf pressure on structure.
e The main water loads will be longitudinal drag on the
fabric. The fabric being unrestrained, will 'bunch' next
to the cable, thus reducing surface area subject to drag
and reducing drag force."
Other protective features designed into the project include:
e In-place soil strength tests for each anchor.
® Provision for multiple anchors where soil conditions dictate.
e Three types of guy and bottom anchors, depending on soil
(bottom) materials and condition.
*Mean lower low water.
**This summary is based on work performed before the ocean engineer-
ing work presented in Appendix M. The recommendations of the latest
work will supersede the earlier plans.
e Longitudinal anchors, where necessary.
e Vehicle slope limits and alternate vehicle use methods:
winch the vehicles (trucks or moto-mules) down steep
slopes, and use hand installation (no vehicles) on
particularly sensitive or steep slopes.
A biologist and a geologist approved by the respective counties
and the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission will provide field
Supervision of construction in sensitive areas.
Prior to construction, Petaluma Fairgrounds will be rented by
Running Fence Corporation for training of crews for hanging and
unfurling Fence fabric (where crews will have the advantage of a
large area for "dry runs" of Fence installation) and for training
of monitors in crowd control by the Sonoma County Sheriff's office
and the Sonoma County District Attorney's office.*
A bus to be rented by Running Fence Corporation will bring
crews to the Fence route in order to avoid inefficiency and additional
traffic of individual transportation.*
Monitors hired at the expense of Running Fence Corporation will
guide visitors away from trespassing on private property. When they
are in need of assistance in protecting property from trespassing,
the monitors' 2-way communication system with Running Fence communi-
cations center can bring the necessary aid from the County Sheriff's
office (from either Sonoma or Marin Counties, depending on location
of need). Additional assistance from the California Highway Patrol
or the Sheriff's offices of Sonoma or Marin Counties may be called in
for solving potential Fence-induced traffic problems on public roads.
All crews and monitors will be trained in fire fighting techniques
by the Division of Forestry.** Other fire-prevention measures will
include the following:
e Motorcycle monitors will have fire extinguishers.
& Smoking by all crews will be restricted to designated
safe areas.
e All construction trucks will be equipped with fire-
fighting tools (two shovels, two McLeods), as well
as fire extinguishers.
*Burr Heneman, A & H Builders, Telephone Communication, October 13, 1975.
**The Division of Forestry can be reimbursed for its fire protection
services only if the reimburser is the party directly responsible for
the fire. 19
e All construction trucks and monitors will be in 2-way
communication with Running Fence communication center.
e Running Fence communication center will be equipped with
Thomas Bros. maps (used by fire agencies) for ease of
communication with fire agencies in the event of fire.*
2 All appropriate fire agencies will be provided with
maps of Fence route with Fence segment numbers and
locations of gates in ranch fences.
20 “Burr Heneman, A § H Builders, Telephone Communication, October 13, 1975
E. LEGAL HISTORY OF THE PROJECT*
The applicant, Running Fence Corporation, applied to Sonoma
County in November 1974 for permits to erect the Running Fence
over private property (with easement agreements). Although the
Zoning Ordinance did not have zoning districts that specifically
permitted or prohibited a temporary 18 foot high fence (the authors
of the Zoning Ordinance could not be expected to have conceived of
such a need), the Running Fence was interpreted to be in compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance. A Use Permit was required.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in its official action
to require a Use Permit declared that an EIR was not required
according to the Board's interpretation of State requirements under
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, due to the temporary
nature of the Running Fence, and to its apparent lack of environmental
impact. **
Subsequently, both the State Lands Commission and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers granted permits for those portions of the originally
proposed project under their jurisdictions (coastal end).
In the late spring of 1975, the North Central Coastal Conserva-
tion Zone Commission approved the coastal zone portion of the Fence
(original Estero de San Antonio routing). The local Commission was
then overruled, in June 1975, by the California State Coastal Conserva-
tion Zone Commission. A new coastal routing has subsequently been
proposed, as noted earlier in this EIR; it terminates about one mile
north of Estero de San Antonio, and about the same distance south of
Estero Americano. A minimum of the route (less than one mile) is
in the coastal zone. The new routing is subject to approval by the
Commission.
In June 1975, just following the disapproval action by the
State Coastal Zone Commission, the earlier action of the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors in denying the need for an EIR was
reversed in Sonoma County Superior Court. Judge Golden of Lake
*Much of the written record of the project, used as background
material in the preparation of this EIR, is based upon applications
to various regulatory agencies during the course of project develop-
ment. Only those elements of the project legal history that bear
upon discussions in this EIR are included in this summary.
**Marin County approved its portion of the project as originally
routed, on the same basis. Both counties imposed a series of
conditions for environmental protection.
21
22
County ruled in favor of Committee to Stop the Running Fence, etal.,
who had sued the County, holding that an EIR should have been required.
The EIR process was therefore started, and the planned construction
of Running Fence postponed from 1975 to 1976.
In September 1975, the California District Court of Appeals
reversed the Superior Court ruling and, thus, the EIR was no longer
legally required to complete processing of the Use Permit in Sonoma
County.
Conditions of the various agencies concerned are to be met by
the applicant. The original Sonoma County and Marin County conditions
follow. Note that the Marin County conditions were set for a different
Fence route than is now proposed. Conditions are, of course, subject
to revision during the forthcoming deliberations of Sonoma County and
Marin County Commissions and Boards.
Consultations by the Sonoma County Planning Department with
other responsible agencies are documented in a letter to ESA from
that Department. See Appendix B.
Resolution 48448
THIS USE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That this permit shall expire on November 1, 1975.
2. That the location of the project shall substantially conform to the location map
on file with the Planning Department marked, “File 7772, Running Fence Corporation,
February 13,1975," and in any case, the project shall only be located on those parcels
made a part of the permit application, and the project shall only be conducted in a
manner authorized by the written agreements with the owners of said parcels and on
file with the Planning Department.
3. That the size, composition and design of elements of the fence project shall-
substantially conform to the Construction Details Summary on file with the Planning
Department marked, "File 7772, Running Fence Corporation, February 13, 1975;" minor
alterations required by other conditions of this permit or to improve the safety of
the project are permitted.
4. That the fence panels shall be constructed of white fabric which is fire retardent
to the satisfaction of local fire agencies.
5. That all costs of public agencies resulting from this project, other than
ordinary services associated with the issuance of required permits, shall be borne
by the applicant; these costs shall include, but not be limited to, special or
emergency police or fire service, and enforcement of the conditions of this permit.
6. That prior to the issuance of Building Permits, a bond in the minimum amount of
$150,000 shall be posted to insure compliance with the conditions of this permit to
correct damages and for compensation to any property affected by this project or to
the County of Sonoma or other public agencies; said bond shall be acceptable to the
County Counsel.
7. That prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall furnish the
County of Sonoma with evidence that an insurance policy has been obtained providing
combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of not less than
$1,000,000 and naming the County of Sonoma as additional insured, said insurance
policy shall be acceptable to County Counsel. ~
8. That a qual-ified biologist shall be retained by the County at applicant's expense,
to oversee construction and removal of the project to insure that the project will
be constructed in a manner which mitigates adverse impact on wildlife, plant life,
riparian zones and marshes; the Planning Director may, prior to issuance of Building
Permits, require a cash deposit in an amount sufficient to reimburse the County for
anticipated costs of the biologist's services.
9. That construction within or over public rights-of-way shall be subject to review
by the issuance of Encroachment Permits by the County Public Works Department or
other applicable agency.
10. That the project shall not cause or contribute to blockage of any public or
private rights-of-way except as may be allowed by written authorization of the
affected owners or agencies.
11. That all applicable County Building Permits shall be obtained prior to the
commencement of work.
12. That all other applicable permits (local, State and Federal) shall be obtained
and resultant conditions met and copies of said permits shall be placed on file with
the Sonoma County Planning Department prior to the issuance of County Building Permits.
13. That fabric fence panels shall not be erected or displayed without written
authorization of the Planning Director; and that prior to issuance of said authorization,
the applicant shall consult with the following agencies for the safe conduct of the
display period:
23
24
Resolution 48448
California Highway Patrol County Sheriffs Department
California Division of Forestry Cotati Fire Protection District
Penngrove Fire Protection District California Department of Fish & Game
County Public Health Department
14. That the display period of the project shall be limited to a period of fourteen (14)
days commencing with the erection of the first fabric panel; and that at the end of
said display period, the applicant shall immediately commence removal of the project
and restoration of affected properties substantially to their original condition,
including removal of roadside litter; and in any case, said removal and restoration
shall be completed prior to the expiration of this permit.
15. That the fabric fence panels shall be removed immediately upon request of the
California Highway Patrol, if necessary to maintain safe traffic movement.
16. That at least 80 persons trained in crowd and traffic control, fire prevention,
and citizen and property rights shall be stationed along the project route during
the fabric display period.
17. That the portion of the project route within 1000 feet of U. S. 101 Freeway,
and the portion within Estero Americano shall be constructed last and removed first
following the display period.
18. That this permit shall be subject to revocation or modification by the Board
of Zoning Adjustments if: (a) the Board finds that there has been noncompliance with
any of the foregoing conditions or (b) the Board finds that the use for which this
permit is hereby granted is so exercised as to be substantially detrimental to
persons or property in the neighborhood of the use.
Any such revocation shall be preceded by a public hearing noticed and heard pursuant
to Section 26.225 of the Sonoma County Code.
MARIN COUNTY
CONDITIONS
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
1.
_ Morin County Code $13.12.
All activities associated with the running fence shill be completed os per the
opplicotion for Design Review, unless stipulated otherwise in the following
conditions. F
Applicont shall submit to the County of Msrin a report pressed by a registered
engincer or other person (accep*cole to the Planning Diss ~ ©) with demonstrated
expertise in the arco of marine enginecring cetoiling iy «s:ign end tolerance of
the running fence structure (to te placed in the tidelers) to withstand extreme
bottom fluctuations, tidol velocities, debris pileup, etc.
“The County of Marin stoff shall have the right to pass over the properties on
which the sunning fence is located for inspection, supervision, and other
related ond reasonable octivities.
Motion picture operations, if performed from 3 County maintained road, and
If performed by the applicant or his delegates, shall require a commercial
filming permit os per County Code $5.36, and on encroochment permit per
Jonuary 20, 1975
licm 10 - Poge 2
STAFF REPORT i
26
8.
10.
VW.
12.
13.
County maintained roads shell, in olf coses, be hen’ wen co throug
traffic. The C.H.P., of other Ganropriate enforcement onencics,
shall be requested by the cyplicent to monitor the operations and
adjust ony offending trasfic situations.
During con:truction, materials may be placed along the roodzide of ;
County maintained roads, only as permiticd by on encroachment permit
Issued by the County Department of Public Works.
The fence, upon approoching a County maintained roed, sholl terminate
ot the right-of-way line. INo quy lines, cverhecd or otherwise, within
the right-of-way sholl be permitted.
A wildlife expert (accepteble to applicant end the Planning Director) shall
supervise the siting, instollation, end remevat of the renning fence (posts D
ond fobric) on parcels \O9-G5-21, 100-0'0-22, 105-0-20-2%4 er-t 102-020-26
(adjacent to Estero Scn Anionio and Estero Americonc) to ensure:
a. Provision for adequate and appropriate openings for wildlife seeking
‘access to the woterways. :
b. That the instollation and removal cf posts and fabric and vehiculer
operation do not disture cny endangered plent species or obvious wild-
life "resting" sites (nest, pad, etc.)
The precise location of the running fence in the following locations shall
be subject to the asprovel of County stoff, os delermined by on-site field
investigation and technical consultation:
‘a. From the 200 foot clevecticn west to the termination of the running fence
on the Rancho Compcdres de San Antonio aad adjacent tidelands.
b. All stream (intermittan! o: perennial) crossings.
‘¢. Within the conservation zone adjacent fo Estero Americano
County staff, upon field inspection prior to installation «f cc:ts hes the right
to require no operalions (pasts or fence) within erviccnmeatally: ccns* tive
oreas, such as the strecm conservation zone.u; Sitzro Anericuns or ether
stream crossings. ; i
The mutuolly occeptoble wildlife exoert shall have tre authority to require
openings in the fence to enable wildlife access to Estero San Antonio.
The vehicles utilized cross-country (off estebtishod fire ar ranch roads) shell
be os specified in the azplication (equipped with wide, flotation type tires);
in additign, soid vehicles shall be equipped with fire suporession equizment
os requircd by the Marin County Fire Chief aad all personnel shall be instructed
in the operation of the equipment.
Applicant's representative(s) shall consult with the Marin County Fire Chief
tegording the method of emercency pesscus “throval" the fence in the-event
of wild fire; if necesscry, the apoticant shall provide the Marin County Fire
Deportinent with oppropriate tools to cut the lower ccble or othenvide provide
topid passage "through" the fence. (Tools may be required for the fire trucks
ot Pt. Reyes, Hicks Valley, Tomales as well cs deputys' vehicles at these
locations.
Certification shall be provided to insure that the fobric utilized will not
sustoin fire.
-Janvary 20, 1975
Item 10 - Page 3
STAFF REPORT
14, Na vegetatien tho!l be removed other than orasses or forbs which grow In
the imnicdiote location of anchors, posts, etc.
: .
Ww 18 inches of cleorance obove grede shall be maintained for the length of the
fence with the only exceptions at tie-downs, where the lower edge may be
drown toward the ground.
16. All poles, cables, weights and other remnants of the project (excepting
onchors, see “17) slicll be removed from the running fence.route; siock-
iling may occur on indivicucl rencn compounds cs determined by individual
heer gee: All holes shell be tackfilled cs specified in the opplicotion, and
the naturel terrain shell be ieft in such a condition as to provide no nozard
to livestock, wildlife, persons or vehicles.
17. Soil anchors may remain in plece, provided thot such will not result in metol
. . . y p . P t .
projections in the uppermos? 12 inches of ine soil,
18. = In order to moximize the potentiol for visibility for wildlife, the fence shall
be disployed during the crightest phoses of the moon; such occurs between
ploy : brig P
September 12 and 22, 1975.
19. = The timetoble for display clean-up, removol and restoration sha!i be as
follows:
Doys 1 = 14: Disploy .
Doys YW - 17: Fabric Removal x
Days 15 - 17: complete removal within ine tidelunds
off Compadres de Son Antonio
Doys 15 - 50+: pole, guyline, etc. removal backfill
The County of Morin sholl retain the righ! to supervise removal and cloan-vp
operviions. if ine ridvicnds seamenr is no1 compiciea Dy Ine 16In Gay
fotiowing Ihe conmencenient of dispiuy, Me County of Nuria suai wuve tre
tight to secure services tc remove all materials from the tidelands, with the
cost of such services to be deducted directly from the cesh bond heid by
the County of IMerin. i S
In the event thot cll clean-up operations ore not completed by November 1,
1975, staff of the County of Metin may authorize dey-to-day continuation of
work, os necessary; ground conaitions (as afiectad by roinfoli) witl be consicered
in the time extensions. If werrented by ecrly rainiall or other unforseen event,
the County of Marin may authorize continuation of cleanup ct a Icter dite, not
to commence later then Mey 1, 1976. Applicant shall file with the County of
Marin a notice of completion of clean-up and restoration, The County of
Marin sholl retcin the right to inspect affected lenus within 21 days of this
notice and determine wnetiner or not all conditions nave bcen met. Discrencncy
between applicant's stctement of completion and tAsrin County staff findings
sholl be raviewed by the Environmental Protection Cemmittee for determination.
Standard appeal procedures will be cppliccble.
‘20, — Bonding shall be required in the amount of $109,C00, $25,009 of which shell be
“in the form of a cash bond, on deposit with the County of Mazin or deznository
acceptable to the County of Marin and applicant. Said cash deposi shall be
ovailable for the following:
0. In the event of unsutisfectory completion of the conditions in "19" chove,
where lack of action constitutes o hazard to persons or the environment
In the opinion of the Planning Director, the County of Morin shall have
the right 10 secure services tocchieve campletion of said conditions, the
cost of such services to be deducted from the cash deposit availeble on an
Immediate basis. 4 .
b. Direct cost of county supervision shall be cu.argesi to applicent, to b>
deducted from the cash deposit. Said supervision snall be chorqed ar the 27
hourly rate of the staff person assiqned the responsibility, and shall not
exceed ten days (80 hours) and appropriate mileace, motor pool charges
without authorization by the Planaing Yirector cna applicant.
STAFF REPORT Jonvey 20. 1978
Item } tue t
P ~
28
aie Applicant shall make availcble to the County of Mere evidence of tabilily,
Insuronze. Such shall indemnify and hold ha rless 3 the Coxaty of Mentin
egouinst ony claim for dcmeces, costs, attorneys’ fens ne op penves 62d Gay
judgement or decree which “might be renucred cguiast ihe County of Marin
on account of any event or BlGimn which might be related to the instollotion,
display, or removal of the running fence intentional or accicenicl.
All ogreements required shall be opps roved prior to commencement. cof work
by the County Counsel of the County of iMarin.
At the hearing before the Planning Commission, the Staff of
the Planning Department and Per eae agreed to modifications
EOpconduezons LS and 20) .uwhach ace attached hereto. The
conditions as modificd were the subject of the ETounsng
a5)
Commiss HOM Vowel
Adequate clearance above grade shall be provided
at suitable intervals along the length of the Fence
to provide for passage of field mammals, such provision
of clearance to be subject to coe. of the County
Sicaune. :
20)
Bonding shall be required in the amount of $50,000,
S2.0;,000 Of iach shall be aaletter of credit posted
with a depository acceptable to the County of Marin
and applicant. Said deposit shall be available for
the following:
ae.
‘In the event of unsatisfactory completion of the
cond tions an. TEI" above, wilrere lack of action
constitutes a hazard to persons or the environment
in the opinion of the Planning Director, the County
of Marin shall have the right to secure services
to achicve completion of said conditions, the cost
o£ such services to be deducted from the letter of
ered.
\
_Direet cost of County supervision shall be. charged
to applicant, to be deducted from the letter of
credit. Said supervision shall be charged at the
hourly rate of the staff person assigned the
responsibility, and shall not exceed ten days
(80 hours) an appropriate mileage/motor pool charges
without authorization by, the Planning Dilxector and
‘applicant.
OFFICE OF TRE COUNTY CLERK
MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SAN RAFAEL , CALIFORNIA
: Ne ETE
FO: DATE: May
\
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES, MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1975
CONDITION ON RUNNING FENCE PROJECT
Pursuant to the recommendation of Supervisor Giacomini, M/s Roumiguiere-Price, to
arify the condition regarding bio-kinetic reclamation, which is part of the Board's approval
| February 4, 1975, of the Running Fence Project, es follows:
"{n the event the Running Fence Project obtains al] necesSary approvals and is
erected, and if the farmers of West Marin enter into a contract for bio-kinetic
reclamation, which will call for the test of bio-kinetic manure recycling equipment,
and under which thecontractorfor such equipment would receive a fee upon certifi-—
cation by appropriate independent engineers that the equipment successfully meets
appropriate performance specifications, then the applicant (Mr. Christo and his
Organization) will subsidize any fee to be paid by such farmers in an amoun* not to
exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000)."!
YES ; ALL
bia. So
ATTEST: GEO.H.GNOSS
Clerk
30
F. APPROACH TO THE EIR
Its size, transitory nature and essentially non-utilitarian
purpose make Christo's Running Fence one of the most unusual and
challenging projects ever to be considered in terms of potential
impacts on the environment. Clearly, the subjective interpretation
and analysis of the Running Fence is beyond the purview of the
preparers of an environmental impact report- ESA has carefully avoided
judging Running Fence as an art object.
This investigation has, therefore, addressed only the primary
and secondary environmental effects associated with the construction,
viewing, and removal of the Fence as a part of the total process. In
isolating the physical Fence from the whole process, this distinction,
while not consonant with the artist's objectives as we understand them,
is nevertheless necessary for our present purposes.
In this work program, we have:
oO Organized data provided by the Running Fence
Corporation and County of Sonoma, existing
literature, public and public-agency attitudes,
and other consultants.
oO Supplemented existing information and acquired
additional data where appropriate.
oO Identified possible areas of concern not
previously noted.
oO Completed the impact analysis and remaining report
sections as specified in the Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended through March 1975.
The analysis has covered setting, impact, and mitigation for
each of the three on-site stages of Running Fence: (1) construction,
(2) viewing, and (3) removal.
ET’.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT, MITIGATION
SOC IAL/ECONOMIC
1. ARCHAEOLOGY*
Setting
In the vicinity of the Running Fence route, no known archaeo-
logical sites or resources appeared in the records studied: California
Department of Parks and Recreation at Sacramento, Sonoma State Univer-
sity at Rohnert Park, and California State University at San Francisco.
No indications of archaeological resources were observed or discovered
during visual surface reconnaissance efforts at locations where pre-
historic sites would be most likely to occur.
Impact
The Running Fence on its proposed route will have no significant
impacts upon archaeological resources, so far as can be determined
by existing data. Since they include no excavation, construction
activities are not likely to uncover information about (exposed)
archaeological sites. By the same token, such activities are not
likely to damage such sites if present along the route. However,
in the unlikely event that archaeological artifacts are observed
in any area during the construction phase, the area should be imme-
diately vacated until clearance or mitigation measures are approved
by an archaeologist representing the governing agency.
Mitigation
No mitigation is required, unless artifacts, or other evidence,
are discovered. The permits authorizing the project should contain
conditions or safeguards, such as a performance bond, to assure that
potential archaeological sites are protected from damage or destruction.
*See Appendix L for report of Archaeological Consulting and
Research Service, Inc.
Si
32
2. LAND USE
Setting
The proposed Running Fence route passes through predominantly
large open agricultural, dairy, and grazing properties. In addition,
the route passes through clusters of rural residential use near
Railroad Avenue, Meacham Road, and the town of Valley Ford; and the
route also passes near the community of Bloomfield--all in Sonoma
County. Bloomfield consists of an elementary school, a tavern, and
residences. Valley Ford (population 126) consists of a market, a
bank, a post office, a sandwich shop, a repair garage, a service
station, a small hotel, a restaurant, a realtor's office, and an
office of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. The Marin County
portion of the route passes through dairy and grazing properties.
Zoning along the route within Sonoma County is predominantly
Agricultural, Exclusive Agricultural or Unclassified, but also includes
an area of Light Industrial zoning on Stony Point Road, and the Rural-
Residential-zoned Happy Acres, a subdivision off Meacham Road. Zoning
in the Marin County portion is A-60, Agricultural Zone (60 acres
minimum) .*
Sonoma County has traditionally been an agricultural county.
The amenities of agriculture and the proximity to Bay Area centers
have attracted people to the County. Population growth and increasing
urbanization in the County over the last 20 years have reduced overall
agricultural potential.** The City of Petaluma tripled in population
between 1950 and 1972, and now has a ''slow-growth" housing plan limit-
ing new housing units to a maximum of 500 a year; this policy is
currently being tested in the courts. Sonoma County has a policy of
compact growth. Agriculture in the County is considered vital to the
preservation of urban/rural diversity.**
Impact
The Running Fence, a temporary structure, will have no sub-
stantial practical impacts on current land uses along its route.+
However, it will be potentially a partial barrier to movement of
stock and wildlife; and when in proximity to the viewer, a barrier
to view of the landscape, during the two weeks (maximum) it is to
*Telephone Communication, Kathleen Ohlson, Marin County Planning
Department, August 19, 1975.
_ **Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin--Summary Composite Alterna-
tives, March 14, 1975.
: +Potential congestion along public rights of way is considered
in Traffic/Circulation/Parking Section. It is not conventionally
considered to be a Land Use impact in EIR's.
be in place in its completed state with nylon panels in place--the
viewing phase (two weeks of September 1976).
During the construction phase (starting in April 1976) and
during the removal phase (October 1976) the Running Fence will not
be a visual barrier, due to the absence of the nylon panels. The
lower cable, lying on the ground, is not likely to be a barrier to
movement. Movement on public rights of way will not be obstructed
by the Fence per se during any phase.
Other than the visual barrier and partial movement barrier, the
Fence will not interfere with the existing land uses of the area of
the Fence route--mainly grazing. In the community of Valley Ford,
the Fence route, with construction restricted to private property
only, will cross Petaluma/Vallev Ford Road, possibly bringing increased
temporary economic activity to Valley Ford, but not otherwise creating
impacts on land uses in Valley Ford.
The Running Fence will be viewed from Bloomfield, but will not
be close enough to obstruct land uses within the community.
The Fence will pass within view of homes in the Happy Acres
subdivision,* travelers on Freeway 101 (north of Petaluma), and
rural residents near Railroad Avenue and Meacham Hill.
The Fence itself will not obstruct use and movement along its
route, although viewer traffic at peak times on a weekend day during
the viewing phase may obstruct use and movement (see Traffic/Circulation/
Parking Section).
Many of the parcels within the Running Fence route that are
under easement agreements with the applicant are also under Agricul-
tural-Preserve Contract with Sonoma County. An Agricultural-Preserve
Contract limits a landowner's use of his land to agricultural use or
open space in exchange for reduced assessed valuation of the property
(and thus reduced taxes) while the land is under contract (usually
a set time period such as ten years).
RS the Running Fence is not a commercial venture for which
direct profit** would be earned (i.e., from admission charges),
the Running Fence, the landowner easement agreements with the
~*See Appendix for one resident's views on land-use impacts
(Appendix N, letter from Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Raymond to Sonoma County
Planning Department. )
**According to the applicant, indirect income will be earned by
the Running Fence Corporation in the form of sales of art works created
in conjunction with the project (but sold elsewhere). The applicant
attests that to date, such income has been applied to the costs of
other large-scale art projects of the corporation. (Jeanne-Claude 33
Javacheff, personal communication, July 28, 1975.)
34
Running Fence Corporation, and the Agricultural-Preserve Contracts
with Sonoma County do not appear to be in conflict. Therefore, the
Running Fence can be considered not incompatible with agricultural
or open-space use.
Mitigation
See Section on Traffic/Circulation/Parking.
An ultimate mitigation measure for obstruction uf use and move-
ment due to viewers, after other suggested solutions have been
applied, is to take down the Fence--even before scheduled removal.
This would be done, by prior agreement, upon proper signal* under
necessary conditions.
Upon removal of the Fence, existing land uses and movement will
continue as before.
*To be given by Captain Eric Denton, Commander, California
Highway Patrol, Santa Rosa Area Office.
3. POPULATION AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS*
Setting
Most of the length of the proposed Running Fence project lies
within Sonoma County, passing near the towns and communities of
Penngrove, Cotati, Two Rock, and Bloomfield, and through Valley Ford.
The most westerly section of the Fence cuts across a small corner of
northwestern Marin County, terminating in Bodega Bay between the
Estero Americano and the Estero de San Antonio. The portions of both
counties which it traverses are sparsely populated and rural, consist-
ing forthe most part of dairy ranches and small villages.
In this section of the report, the growth characteristics of
the county populations and the relative changes in character will be
discussed. The January 1974 population of Sonoma County was 235,100.
The annual growth rate of the County population since 1940 has been
constantly on the decline: between 1940 and 1950, it was 5.0 percent;
between 1950 and 1960, 4.3 percent; between 1960 and 1970, 3.9 percent;
and between 1970 and 1973, 3.7 percent. The source of the population
has been recorded since 1960 and categorized either as in-migration
or as a natural increase due to the birth rate's exceeding the death
rate. The statistics show that in-migration is responsible for
between 68 and 94 percent of the increase. Although there is not a
steadily increasing trend in the proportion of in-migrants to total
population increase, the figures show that most recently in 1973 and
1974, in-migration was responsible for 93 and 90 percent, repectively,
of the County population increase.
Sonoma County is considering two alternatives in county planning
which would affect population growth, density, and distribution.
Under Alternative One, the countywide population projection for the
year 2000 would be 478,000, the growth rate averaging slightly over
four percent annually. Alternative Two would involve some growth
restriction: the county population in the year 2000 would be substan-
tially lower--378,000, corresponding to a growth rate averaging 2.48
percent annually. The County also anticipates a decrease in the rural
population and an increase in urban center development, a continuation
of a trend that started about ten years ago. It is anticipated, in
addition, that the housing market would shift towards multi-family
construction and mobile homes, although single-family homes still
would occupy a portion of the housing demand.
A small part (less than 20 percent) of the proposed Running
Fence route traverses a corner of Marin County as it approaches
*This section is based on information from the Sonoma County
Data File, a recent publication of the Sonoma County Economic
Development Board. 35
36
the coast. It does not pass close to any established community in
Marin County.
Marin County population statistics* show that Marin County
experienced a paris high rate of growth between 1960 and 1970,
averaging 4.03 percent annually. Over that period of time, the
growth in the urban areas averaged 4.77 percent annually while the
rural area populations decreased at a rate of 1.25 percent annually.
Since 1970, the rate of population growth has been rapidly reduced.
The County has experienced a total increase of approximately 4.7 per-
cent since 1970, or an annual rate of approximately one percent.
The current Countywide population is 216, S002.
It was estimated that the 1972-73 Marin County population gain
was 3,300 persons, of which 24.5 percent was a natural increase due
to the birth rate's exceeding the death rate and 75.5 percent of the
increase was due to the in-migration of population.
Impact
a) Construction Phase.
The construction phase of the Running Fence project would not
have any significant impacts on the population or community charac-
teristics of the area, since the construction team (poles and cables)
is small, and the panel-hanging team would be working for only one
or two days during this phase.
b) Viewing Phase.
It is assumed that people would visit this area to view the
Fence, arriving from all parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, the
State of California, and beyond. This would result in a temporary
increase in population in the northern part of Marin County and the
southern part of Sonoma County.
Many of those who would come to visit the Fence would be new to
this area. The exposure of a significant number of persons to this
region could instigate a slight increase in the number of people
interested in living in or developing more housing in this area. This
could lead to an ultimate increase in the population which, however,
could not be considered significant in comparison to substantial
development pressures which already exist (see Economic Setting
Section) .
*Marin County Planning Department, September 1974, Marin County
Statistical Abstract.
**Ray Ahearn, Marin County Planning Department, July 23, 1975.
c) Removal Phase.
Upon removal of the Running Fence, the population of the area
would return to its normal number. No significant impacts on the
population or community characteristics would be incurred by this
action.
Mitigation
Widespread publicizing of the event would encourage signifi-
cant crowding in the area. The temporary increase in population
in the area of the Fence could thus be mitigated by control and
limitation of publicity. Effective dissemination of information
concerning the time available for viewing and the many different
viewpoints and routes available might reduce potential crowding.
37
38
4. COMMUNITY ATTITUDES
This section has been based on community attitudes already
expressed at the time of writing. Additional attitudes may be
expressed during the public hearing process, and may be incorporated
into the Final EIR, an addendum to the Draft EIR.
Summary
This project is unique with respect to the variety and quantity
of community attitudes and public agency viewpoints that have been
articulated, assembled, and made available prior to actual initiation
of work on the EIR. Community attitudes may vary according to the
meaning of "community"’, which may refer to (1) local dairy land
owners, (2) conservationists, (3) agencies, (4) Bay Area residents,
or (5) art experts and critics.
The attitudes of some of the local dairy landowners seem to be
that a landowner should be able to do what he wants with his land
with a minimm of interference.* Conservationists, on the other
hand, want to protect the natural environment, regardless of owner-
ship. Agencies are required to carry out the law, as they interpret
it, in the public interest. Bay Area residents travel throughout
the Bay Area region for recreation and participation. Most of the
artists, art experts, or critics who have volunteered their comments
want a known artist to be able to complete his or her art work.**
Specific Information
Over 60 dairy land owners (in Sonoma and Marin Counties) favor
the proposed Running Fence idea; theirsupport is documented by their
easement agreements with the applicant for use of their land.
Some conservationists opposed the original proposal for the con-
struction of Running Fence for fear of environmental damage from construc-
tion and from trespassing by viewing visitors, and suspicion of the pro-
ject's being an "invention to make money" (Findley, 1975) .+
Although the North Central Coast Regional Commission of the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission approved Christo's
Running Fence "with (environmental) safeguards deemed adequate,"
the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission itself denied
approval within the Commission's area of jurisdiction, partly on
the basis of a conservationist's written appeal.+tt
*Personal communication with various dairy landowners on
August 3, 1975 and August 10, 1975.
**See sample letters in Appendix. (Note: Appendix letters
have been chosen to demonstrate various viewpoints; no attempt has
been made to indicate the frequency of occurrence of any viewpoint.
+See section on Economics Impact.
++Margaret Azevedo, Chairman, North Central Coast Regional
Commission, letter to Dr. Joel Hedgpeth, June 26, 1975. See also
Section on Project Permit Process above.
The legal history of the project, reflecting in part other
community attitudes, has been summarized in Section I.E. above.
One Bay Area community, Belvedere, in southern Marin County,
stated its support of Running Fence, but did not specify its
reasons. *
Art experts and critics, in written statements, have declared
Christo as ''serious', "sincere", and ''a significant and respected
creative artist''.** Some local artists disagree with this assess-
ment .**
¥Letter from Mayor David Bordon to Melvin Lane, Chairman,
Coastal Commission, June 11, 1975.
**See Appendix N for copies of communications.
39
40
S. COMMUNITY SERVICES
Setting
The proposed Fence route crosses unincorporated land in both
Sonoma and Marin Counties which is served by a number of public
agencies.
a) Education Services.
The students of Sonoma County who live in these rural areas are
bused to various schools including those under the jurisdiction of
the county Superintendent of Schools (in Cotati and Petaluma); Marin
students are bused to schools of the Shoreline Unified School District.
The large fleet of buses which serves these schools delivers the stu-
dents to school between 7:30 and 9:00 AM and then returns most
students to their homes between 2:00 and 4:00 PM. Kindergarten
students are returned home between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM. School
usually opens early in September--after Labor Day.
b) Water Supply.
Water is supplied to the homes in Petaluma and Cotati from the
Russian River Aqueduct, and to the outlying areas by wells on indi-
vidual properties.
c) Liquid Waste Treatment.
Most of the homes in the unincorporated rural areas do not
connect to sewage lines; they use septic tank systems to treat
liquid waste. The areas around Petaluma and Cotati have sewers;
the latter city is served by the Rohnert Park Sewage Treatment Plant.
d) Solid Waste Removal.
Several sanitation companies provide solid waste pickup for
the area.
e) Fire Protection.
There is a fire department in Petaluma and one in Cotati; both
have small service areas in comparison to the total area along the
Fence route. Penngrove also has a fire department. Bloomfield,
Valley Ford, and Two Rock have volunteer fire departments. The
rural unincorporated area is served by the fire protection service
of the California State Division of Forestry, which has three
stations in the region--one in Petaluma, one on Graton Road
near Occidental, and its headquarters in Santa Rosa.
From June through the middle-to-end of October is the ''fire
season'' in Sonoma County. Up-to-date 1975 records for all State-
responsibility fires (those responded to by the State Division of
Forestry) in Sonoma County (5-year annual average) for the two
dryest months (those of highest fire frequency), August and September,
show: *
Date (5-year annual average) Number of Fires
August 1-10 195
August 11-20 216
August 21-31 239
September 1-10 260
September 11-20 ono
September 21-30 294
In contrast to these figures are the figures for April,* as an example,
with its spring rain:
Date (S-year annual average) Number of Fires
April 1-10 3
April 11-21 3
April 21-30 5
*Mr. Ron Matiali, State Division of Forestry, Sonoma Office,
October 16, 1975.
4]
42
f) Police Protection.
During the period that the Fence would be in place, the Sonoma
and the Marin County Sheriff's Departments would be responsible for
events taking place on the properties along the Fence route;
the California Highway Patrol would be concerned with maintenance
of traffic flow on all roads in the vicinity. The California
Highway Patrol would be assisted by county Sheriff's Departments
when necessary.*
g) Emergency Medical Service.
Emergency ambulance service is available from Community Hospital
in Santa Rosa and from Hillcrest Hospital Annex in Petaluma. They
charge MediCal rates for the service but have a very limited number
of ambulances. Outlying areas and other hospitals rely on private
ambulance companies to provide service. There are numerous companies
providing this service; they operate out of Santa Rosa, Sebastopol,
Guerneville, Sonoma, and Cotati.
h) Recreation Areas.
For a map of major recreation areas in the area, see Figure
J-2 (Appendix J).
Impacts
The construction, viewing, and removal of the Running Fence
would require the cooperation of the various safety-related public
agencies. In anticipation of a number of potential safely problems,
the applicant, the Running Fence Corporation, has proposed (or
accepted in prior agreements) a number of precautions as conditions
to erection of the Fence; these are described in Project Description
and in the Mitigation Measures accompanying this section (Community
Services) of the report. Impacts described in the following represent
the "unmitigated" potential situations.
a) Education Services.
i. Construction Phase: No impacts.
ii. Viewing Phase: As this event holds the potential for
causing traffic congestion on the rural roads in this-area, it is
possible that the school buses, bearing children to and from schools,
would be delayed or prevented from keeping their schedules. If such
a disruption so affected the students in the area, it would consti-
tute a significant temporary impact on the area educational system.
111. Removal Phase: No impacts.
*Lt. Robert Greer, CHP Santa Rosa Area Office, October 17, 1975.
b) Water Supply.
i. Construction Phase: As a safety precaution for fighting
small fires, two five-gallon back-pack, water-filled fire extinguishers
would be mounted on the construction and monitoring vehicles. As there
would be six monitoring trucks, only about 100 to 300 gallons would be
available/used for this purpose. Construction workers would require a
minimal amount of drinking water.
ii. Viewing Phase: On a peak day, visitors would use less
than 100,000 gallons of the area's water; this cannot be considered
a Significant impact, in view of the temporary nature of the project.
iii. Removal Phase: No significant impact; the removal phase
would last less than two days.
c) Liquid Waste Treatment.
i. Construction Phase: Those who would be working on
erection of the Fence would use facilities on the various properties
involved. The small number of workers involved would result in no
adverse effect on the community service agencies.
ii. Viewing Phase: The people who would be traveling
through the area to view the Fence would be using public toilet
facilties in service stations and restaurants in Petaluma and
other sizeable communities along Highway 101, and to a lesser
extent, along Highway 1. An estimated crowd of 15,000 to 30,000
on a peak day would generate between 45,000 and 90,000 gallons of
liquid waste. It is not anticipated that any adverse impact would
affect the involved community service agencies.
iii. Removal Phase: See Construction Phase impact discussion
above.
d) Solid Waste Removal.
i. Construction Phase: It is unlikely that a significant
amount of solid waste would be generated during the process of erect-
ing the Fence. It is likely that a total of 2.5 cubic feet of
solid wastes would be produced each day by the workers themselves.
Fabric panels will arrive in wrappings of the same fabric, which
will be given to farmers and landowners.
43
44
ii. Viewing Phase: It is expected that the people attracted
during the viewing phase will generate a substantial amount of solid
waste. On a peak day, 1,050 to 2,100 cubic feet (about 40 to 80 cubic
yards) of solid wastes could be disposed of in the area. It is possible
that a significant fraction of this will be litter along the route,
confined to public roadways as public viewing from private properties
will not be allowed.
iii. Removal Phase: See Construction Phase above. The Fence
materials themselves will be delivered to the landowners or disposed
of as surplus materials (to the trade).
e) Fire Protection.
i. Construction Phase: The construction phase will con-
tinue through August and into September, the period of the highest
frequency of fires. The use of a motor-driven vehicle on the dry
grassland area creates a potential for fire. The Fence itself is
made of nylon, which is not very flammable (see Technical Description
Section). Mitigation measures are planned for fire-protection purposes.
The responsibility for handling a fire would rest on the fire depart-
ment serving the area in which the fire occurred (see Setting). The
cost of the work done by the fire department for any emergency related
to construction would be reimbursed by the Running Fence Corporation.
ii. Viewing Phase: Running Fence is to be viewed during
two weeks in the month of September, the month with the highest fre-
quency of State-responsibility fires. The increase in number of
persons and vehicles in this area, during the season when the grass
is dry and the fire danger generally is high, compounds the fire danger
and increases the chance that fire departments would be called upon.
iii. Removal Phase: Removal will begin in September, the
month of the highest frequency of fires. See Construction Phase
discussion above.
f) Police Protection.
1. Construction Phase: The applicant states that such
control would be exercised over the construction phase under present
plans that it is unlikely that the police would be required to
perform any special duties. There is a minimal probability of any
needed policing, given the nature of the activity.
ii. Viewing Phase: The Running Fence Corporation has
planned for its own monitoring of the event (see Mitigation Measures) ;
however, in the event of a major problem, the Sheriff's Departments
of both Marin and Sonoma Counties would have the responsibility to
lend aid. The California Highway Patrol would be responsible for
maintenance of the traffic flow. Any cost of effort spent related
to this event would be paid for by the Running Fence Corporation.
iii. Removal Phase: See Construction Phase above.
g) Emergency Medical Service.
The number of persons who would visit the area to view the
Fence would increase the probability of an incident which would
require emergency medical services. The number of autos on the road
could inhibit swift service by emergency vehicles (see Traffic/Cir-
culation/Parking Section). Running Fence Corporation plans to
provide for the stationing of an ambulance in the Valley Ford area
at such times and location as will be determined by further consul-
tation with public safety authorities.
h) Recreation Areas.
It is expected that many people visiting the area to view the
Fence would make their visit a vacation. It is probable that the
parks in the region--particularly those in the coastal areas--
could be visited by large numbers of people during the period that
the Fence is in place.
Mitigation
a) Education Services.
Potential for severe traffic congestion and possible delay of
school buses would be mitigated to some degree by the attempt to
maintain a steady traffic flow by the planned placement of uniformed
off-duty Sheriffs' deputies (paid for by the applicant) along the
roadway ; their job would be to control traffic. This measure is
a part of the project plan (see Traffic/Circulation Section also).
b) Water Supply.
The monitors would be provided with drinking water from six
trucks carrying containers of water, according to plans of the
Running Fence Corporation.
c) Liquid Waste.
The Running Fence Corporation could set up chemical toilets
for use by the monitors which would mean that they would not use
ranchers' or public toilet facilities. To avoid crowding of the
public restrooms, chemical toilets could be set up in rest stop
or viewing areas on private property to accommodate the visitors.
This is not part of the present plan. 45
46
d) Solid Waste.
In order to keep litter to a minimum, it is suggested that plans
be changed to include placement of waste containers at stopping
points along the roadway; also, the removal phase of the Fence could
include roadside clean-up by the monitors. The Sonoma County condi-
tions call for removal of litter by the applicant. The conditions
include posting of a $150,000 bond by the applicant ''...to insure
compliance with the conditions of this permit...".
e) Fire Protection.
Several measures have been included in the Running Fence
Corporation's plans as safety precautions against fire:*
e Stationing of monitors along the roadway where the Fence
nears the road to discourage people from stopping and leaving their
cars to examine the Fence; this would keep people off dry grassland;
e Equipping each of six monitoring trucks with one ABC fire
extinguisher , two water fire extinguishers and fire-fighting tools;
e Having the 100 Fence monitors trained in crowd control and
method of control of small grass fires;
@ Equipping the trucks used for erection of the Fence with
spark arresters and skid plates to reduce the potential of grass-
fire caused by these vehicles;
e Assuming total financial responsibility for fire prevention
actions related to this event.
In addition, farmers along the route have offered to make avail-
able their spray rigs filled with liquid. Also, visitors should be
requested to refrain from smoking while in the vicinity of Running
Fence, by means of signing and other communication.
f) Police Protection.
___ The plans of the Running Fence Corporation include the following
mitigation measures:
e Stationing monitors along the Fence where it intersects or
approaches the roadway to keep viewers from trespassing on private
property to inspect the Fence.
*Mr. Burr Heneman, A § H Builders, August 21, 1975.
e Crowd-control training of the monitors by the Sonoma County
Sheriff's office and the Sonoma County District Attorney's office;
e Contracting to hire uniformed off-duty Sheriff's deputies to
help control traitics*
e Assuming total financial responsibility for additional police
activities related to the Fence project.
g) Emergency Medical Service.
During the periods when large numbers of visitors are expected
to be viewing the Fence, an ambulance is to be provided by Running
Fence Corporation and kept in readiness on one of the crowded roads
in case of emergency. Traffic could be controlled to enable use of
the road by an ambulance in case of emergency.
h) Recreation Areas.
Normal. controls on numbers of visitors to public recreation
areas (as on holiday weekends) would mitigate potential impacts.
*Captain Eric Denton, Commander, California State Highway Patrol,
approves of uniformed (off-duty) Sheriff's deputies aiding in traffic
flow and general policing. He disapproves of amateur monitors guid-
ing, slowing, or stopping traffic; but approves of their monitoring
private property--telephone communication August 21, 1975.
47
48
6. | ECONOMICS
Setting
The proposed Running Fence route crosses land which is generally
open and used for dairy ranching. Some other smaller agricultural
activities such as potato farming and turkey raising take place in
the vicinity. The agricultural industry is the largest industry in
Sonoma County, having had an income of $123.6 million in 1974-75.
Of all of the activities which are a part of the agricultural ©
industry, milk production is the largest. The Sonoma County milk
industry had an income of $42 million in 1974-75. The largest _
dairy companies in the County are Clover and Challenge. The unit
price for milk in the County is good but hay and land prices are
high.* Some ranchers have moved to the San Joaquin or Sacramento
Valleys because of the rising land assessments in Sonoma County.*
Although agriculture represents the largest industry in the
County, it comprises only a small portion (about 2 percent) of the
total earnings of the County, including all wages, salaries, and
other labor and proprietors’ income. Of the total earnings, 29.22
percent are made in the governmental sector and 68.61 percent in
the private sector, in which wholesale and retail trade (13.84 per-
cent), services (11.53 percent) and manufacturing (9.19 percent)
are the greatest contributors.** Farm income comprises 2.18
percent of the earnings.
In a description of total personal income in Sonoma County in
1969, farm property income was recently listed as a negative figure.**
This signifies that although farming is a sizeable industry, profit is
not being made. This situation is attributed to the high costs of
feed and other farm-related expenses, combined with the limitation
on the price at which milk can be sold.*
Ranch land in this portion of the county was reassessed two or
three years ago. The large parcels of agricultural land did not
experience much change in value even though there is an influencing
development pressure in the general area. Parcels which were
affected are those located in proximity to developing areas, like
Penngrove, and those small parcels which are considered most
developable--due to availability of water, sewer lines, and other
services. Their assessed valuations have increased dramatically.
*Mr. Harry McCracken, Sonoma County Agricultural Commission,
July 29, 1975.
**Sonoma County Economic Development Board, 1974.
Recent sales in the area show that large 200-300 acre parcels
sell for $600-700 per acre. Also, as noted earlier, the lands
which have appreciated in value are the small parcels located close
to the existing developed communities.
Sonoma County has experienced a decline in building permits
after reaching a high of 5,309 in 1972. This reflects the depression
which has influenced the housing industry all over the Bay Area.
In 1973 the single-family housing unit was more popular than the
multiunit structure, but the most recent and projected trend is that
multifamily housing and mobile homes will increase proportionately
due to the high cost of land (Sonoma County General Plan Summary/1975).
The new housing has concentrated in the vicinity of Santa Rosa,
where much of it has been scattered in the unincorporated area,
and, also, on the east side of Petaluma, which tripled in population
between 1950 and 1972 (Zane, 1975).
Impact
In the process of erecting the Running Fence, persons would
by employed from the local area to punch holes in the soil and
place the poles, guy wires, and cables. Up to 225 persons would
be hired to attach the sections of Fence. About 100 would be
trained in certain skills for fire-fighting and crowd control to
be used during the viewing phase. This constitutes temporary
employment for some area residents.
During the viewing phase, up to 100 persons would remain
employed to monitor the Fence in shifts, providing a 24-hour-a-day
guard. In addition, off-duty deputies from the Sheriff's Depart-
ments of Sonoma and Marin Counties would be hired by the Running
Fence Corporation as needed to control traffic. Most of the pre-
cautionary measures and emergency services would be paid for by
the Running Fence Corporation.* These include emergency use of
helicopters, and services performed by the California State Highway
Patrol or County Sheriff's Departments. They do not include all
services performed by the California State Division of Forestry,
for which there is no mechanism for reimbursement of training costs.
This agency would train monitors in some fire-fighting techniques,
as well as respond to emergency calls.** In summary, it is antici-
pated that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on
the finances of the local governments or the local public service
agencies. However, one State agency would have some unreimbursed
expenses.
*The Running Fence Corporation is financed by sales of Christo's
art; 0.e., the sketches and drawings of each of his projects which
he creates during the process of the project and after its completion. 49
**See Community Services Section. Note that there is a mechanism
for reimbursement of the Division of Forestry by the individual or
organization directly causing a fire.
50
The project would attract approximately 15 ,000- 30,000 viewers
on a peak day,* the majority of whom would be from outside the
immediate vicinity of the Fence route. These visitors would make
purchases in the commercial portions of the local communities,
bringing some business to merchants and sales tax to the cities;
quantities cannot be estimated.
Viewing of the Fence would introduce the area to great numbers
of people who had not visited there previously, which could result
in a slight increase in demand for housing over a long period of
time in this area, and therefore, pressure for development in this
area. Land speculation in the area is down. As noted earlier,
reappraisal of land value in the area within the past two or three
years has not resulted in much change in assessed value for the
large parcels such as those which the Fence would cross. Much
of this land is not considered developable; some of it is in agri-
cultural-preserve contracts with Sonoma County.** Much of it
does not have water available nor are the soils conducive to use
as a percolation area for septic treatment of sewage. It is unlikely
that assessments would be affected by the Running Fence project.t
In addition, a minor development pressure resulting from the
event would not constitute a significant impact on the land or on
the market for land. The significant development pressure which
exists at the present time affects the land considered developable;
the Fence project could of itself create only a slight increase in
the present demand for such developable land.
The Fence would be removed by those persons who had been hired
to erect it and monitor the viewing phase. The last stage of the
project, removal,would complete and terminate the temporary jobs
created by the Running Fence.
Upon removal of the Fence, the materials used would be given
to the community. One of the trucks with balloon tires used to
erect the Fence would be given to Sonoma County, as well as one of the
machines used to punch holes in the soil for placement of the fence
poles. Each owner of land which the Fence crosses would be given
the poles used to hold the Fence. There are over 2,000 poles; at a
cost of $42 each, they represent a gift of $84,000.++The Fence
panels and the steel cable and anchors would also be given to the
landowners. The Running Fence Corporation will bestow
*See Traffic/Circulation/Parking section.
**See Land Use section.
*+Mr. Don Martin, Appraiser, Petaluma Assessor's Office,
July 23, 1975.
++At 1973 prices.
a gift of a biokinetics machine--a machine which converts animal wastes
into animal feed--upon the County of Marin. All these gifts represent
a substantial monetary benefit to the Counties* and the ranchers in the
area. Sonoma County also received from Running Fence Corporation in
1975 a use permit fee of $1,850,* and almost $800 in building permit
fees** ($526.50 building inspection fee, $263.25 plan check fee, and
$10.00 referral to County Water Agency). The use permit fees for
new permits for 1976 are an additional $900.
In order to better judge Running Fence's potential traffic
impact, a special traffic count was made during the months of August
and September, 1975, in Sonoma County at the request of the Planning
Department, at some cost (amount unavailable) to the County for labor,
computer time and equipment use.
The value of Christo's art increases with time, new showings,
and new projects. The Valley Curtain, Christo's most recent large-
scale work, raised the price of Christo's drawings, which had been
$129 in 1964 and $980 in 1969, to $7,200 in 1975.*** Nevertheless,
the Christos (Javecheffs) do not profit directly from projects
such aS Running Fence and its predecessor, Valley Curtain;*** nor
from the films**** and books+ that result from such projects. The
Christos (Javacheffs), who finance their projects (via closely held
corporations) through the sale of Christo's drawings, had joint
personal (adjusted gross) incomes for the last two years of: 1974,
$7,207; and 1973, $1,743.++
Running Fence Corporation, formerly Valley Curtain Corporation,
which finances Christo's large works and which is supported by the
sale of Christo's drawings, had net losses for the last four years
of: 1974, $74,659; 1973, $121,836; 1972, $65,083; 1971, $67,852.+++
*Lloyd Johnson, Zoning Administrator, Sonoma County, Telephone
Communication, August 21, 1975.
**Anna Lee Wilcox, Office of Building Inspector, Sonoma County,
Telephone Communication, October 17, 1975.
***Jeanne-Claude Javacheff, Personal Communication, July 28, 1975.
****Letter from Maysles Films, Inc., Filmmaker, August 15, 1975,
regarding proposed Running Fence film. See Appendix N.
+Letter from Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publisher, June 6, 1975,
regarding Running Fence book. See Appendix N.
++IRS joint personal income tax return for Christo and Jeanne-
Claude Javacheff and correspondence from Harry Auerbach, CPA, N.Y.
_ *+++IRS corporation income tax return for Running Fence Corpora-
tion and correspondence from J.K. Lasser § Co., CPA, Chicago. These
figures include carried-forward losses from prior years. 51
52
It can be assumed that the successful completion of Running
Fence will tend to raise the price of Christo's future drawings.
Past practice, as noted, has been to use funds from sales of
such drawings to support large-scale projects, a practice that the
Christos are continuing in the present project. Nevertheless,
there is no legal guarantee that all future income will go to the
Running Fence Corporation (or its successors) for future large-
scale projects, nor is it certain that the net worth of the Corpora-
tion at any time will not revert to its principal stockholders,
including the Christos.
Mitigation
As an overall net economic gain is expected to the community
and the County, no mitigation is required.
7. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC
Setting
The Running Fence route, from Meacham Hill at Highway 101 to the
coast, meanders among local roads and through the watersheds of
two creeks: Stemple Creek and Americano Creek.
The grazed rolling hills, contrasted with large late-19th-century
tree plantings on ridges or along roads (for windbreaks) and on
gullies (for erosion control), give form to the landscape. Eucalyptus,
in rows or groupings, predominates among the introduced trees.*
Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and poplar trees give a decided
vertical contrast to the rolling terrain. Old fences--split rail,
rustic picket, white board--add modified horizontal delineation, as
do the local roads--emphasizing the on-going variation in elevation.
Old (late-19th-century) houses, barns, relics of an old railroad,
sheep and cattle, dairy trucks and signs, mailboxes supported by
milk cans, and a surviving road sign stating "Slaughter House Road"
identify the predominant use and interests of the area for close to
a century.
Impact
The direct** visual and aesthetic impacts include theclaimed beneficial
aspects, which will not be discussed here because, as noted earlier,
they have to do with the subjective nature of the Running Fence as an
art object. Of more concern in an environmental impact report are
the potential direct adverse impacts; these have to do chiefly with
the intrusive, if transitory, nature of the Fence as perceived by some
local residents and by travelers along the local roads. The chief
potential adverse imact is the blockage, or the partial blockage, of
close in and panoramic views from residences along the route.
Another is the dominance (as opposed to view blockage) of the Fence
as an element of the close-in view from some residences. Local property-
owners who have signed easement agreements with the applicant are
*Which provide perch or habitat to numerous species of birds
(i.e., turkey vultures, etc.), adding to the interest of the
environment.
**The indirect impacts result from visitors attracted to the area
of the Fence route, primarily during the viewing period. Probably the
most important of these indirect impacts would be the potential traffic
congestion, the nature and the location of which would depend on the
"attractiveness" of the Fence at specific points along its route. A
detailed analysis of the variation of "attractiveness" along the route,
with its implications for congestion, is presented in Appendix J. 53
assumed to be unconcerned about the adverse visual and aesthetic
impacts (or to consider the visual and aesthetic impacts to be
beneficial). This brief examination will therefore emphasize
those portions of the Fence which may block or interfere with views
from residential property not under easement agreements .*
One group of residences so affected consists of the Penngrove
area homes on the eastern flank of Meacham Hill. Most of the closest
homes cluster in a band about 750-1000 feet downslope of the ridge-
line Fence. For those residents, the Fence will change the appearance
of the ridge line where it can be seen through the trees but it will
not block views. One home near the northern end of Segment 23 is a
little closer, perhaps 500 feet from the Fence. However, there are
two intervening knolls, so that the Fence may not be visible from
this home. Near the start of the Fence, at the southern end of
Segment 23, is a group of homes, some of which are somewhat closer
than 500 feet. These, however, see the Fence end-on at its closest
approach.
A second group of residences is that in the Happy Acres subdivision,
on the southeast side of Meacham Road. The Fence would run about
1200-1500 feet to the southeast of these homes, and would be on the
far side of the nearest ridge line. These residents now have some
distant views of Meacham Hill, over the top of that ridgeline.
It is possible that the top of the Fence would be visible above
the ridge line; it could therefore partially block the residents'
distant views of Meacham Hill. One home under construction in
July 1975 is on the nearest ridgeline. The site has panoramic
views to the southeast. While the Fence (below the ridgeline)
would block close-in views, most of the panorama would be visible
over the top of the Fence.
*Direct visual/aesthetic impacts on all travelers are discussed
54 in Appendix J.
8. | TRAFFIC/CIRCULAT ION/PARKING*
Setting**
Beginning at the project's east end, the principal traffic-way
for reaching the Running Fence route and for viewing the Running
Fence will be via U.S. 101 (Freeway), West Railroad Avenue, Stony
Point Road, Meacham Road, Pepper Road, Walker Road, Petaluma/Valley
Ford Road, Franklin School Road, and Estero Road near the project's
west end [See Figures J-1 and J-2 (Appendix J) and 6 (Section II.A.8
and Appendix K)]. To reach these roads, most traffic will approach
from the south on the Freeway (Route 101), exiting at one of three
interchanges: the Old Redwood Highway interchange at Denman Flat
and then along Stony Point Road; Railroad Avenue; or Roblar/West
Sierra Avenue and Stony Point Road. The return to the freeway may
be by these same routes except that, instead of using Railroad
Avenue, traffic must use an on-ramp at Pepper Road to the south of
Railroad Avenue (see Figures J-2 and 6). From the north, those who
leave the freeway will use the Gravenstein Highway (Route 116)
ramps and then Old Redwood Highway (Railroad Avenue) or Stony Point
Road. Those southbound motorists who first decide to leave the
freeway after noticing the Fence would use the Denman Flat Inter-
change. Those who do not leave the freeway may view parts of the
Fence from the freeway itself.
A limited number of twenty-four-hour weekday traffic counts by
Caltrans and Sonoma County were available at the start of this EIR
project (see Appendix K).* Also, twenty-four-hour and hourly weekday
and weekend traffic counts on the principal traffic-way and on
nearby roadways were taken in August and September 1975 by the
Sonoma County Department of Public Works, in order to anticipate
normal traffic volumes in September 1976, when the Fence will be in
place (see Appendix K, Table K-1).*
From all these counts and from personal observations, it
appears that most project-area roads currently operate well below
capacity. Exceptions may be certain segments of the freeway and of
Route 1 on Sundays, particularly in the summer months.
*This section is based on the calculations and judgment of
Donald K. Goodrich, Transportation and Traffic Engineer (Consultant
to ESA), except where other contributors are specifically identified.
**The environmental setting can be presented only if the
potentially involved traffic network is first delineated.
*Details of data and calculations are presented in Appendix K;
the emphasis in this section of the text is on assumptions, general
methods of evaluation, conclusions, and mitigation suggestions.
55
So SRE
GLOL WWLE4ullUy cue EWUUUS © JU5>5q
OL Lqowoyny 92eIS SLUUOFL |e) BYR 40
UuOLSSLWAad Aq paodnpoudau dew o1sSeg
2
*Aempeou pazedtpuL HurZzt{13n 0 EDV
SUOJLSLA G0UeT JO % SazPOLPUT « a oe
were O
salwe 0
We
wo \
ae
@ (ov38 NoTII4
"PY LOoyos uL|xUeLY
puoj Kallen
earace ee sien
“aay ebapog
i5wo2 50
i
J f 0
. My
2
“BAY PROULLEY “M oY
‘any euuals “MQ P
‘ TLV LOD AD Noa se igou
a Aemssaudxy yueg quauyoy
“Glee
10.
poytesiog] ©
ANOLS
St 919 73
TH 79S
PE)
ANiOd,
we 17 = TT AS yt
- Cid 73
q
AW if
«<
—— eee 5
z we
2) g's AY
> TMA waiwion f ©
2
sp
z 5 cy in
> 3
= A
3
2
. = ae
x BBY wae r #\ie1vap1099
2 S22 TN 555 72 *
Oy hs
Wing
o>
.6l
TJ ewoISIs in
aa er Wy ia 4
} zy aN
ys Ss - &
z sleet as
z a 3: , +
3
= Z|
a Site eal =
of ow * iz =|
1g
ats j2 a es
vad aa TW Oi Ses as
ine 2 INO NeVIncd
a o
eS ee OF 77
AN poomurion
The principal traffic-way for viewing the Fence is composed
of five basic road types (see Figure J-2, Appendix J):
1. Four-lane freeway
2. Two-lane roads with centerline stripe and shoulder
delineated by edge stripe
3. Two-lane roads with centerline stripe but without
shoulder
4. Two-lane roads with neither centerline stripe nor
shoulder
Se One-lane road
A review of accident records furnished by Sonoma County
indicates an unusually high percentage of nighttime accidents on
Stony Point Road in 1973, showing a possible need for after-dark
road delineation. However, the pattern did not recur in 1974.*
Impact
Traffic problems are not expected during construction and
removal of the Fence. The limited number of construction vehicles
will make little use of tl.e roadways, except for arrival and depar-
ture each day. The construction and removal stages will not cause
sizable adverse impact from visitors, since the placing of poles
and cables by men and equipment ought not to be much more attractive
to viewers (especially frcem a distance) than the digging of wells,
the building of water supply ponds, or the loading of hay--usual
activities on Sonoma County farm and dairy land.
The visitor impact will be during the viewing stage--a maximum
of two weeks in September 1976. 5
As the Running Fence "'runs'' in an east-west direction, visitors
can view it while driving west, and again while returning east, or
vice versa (a round trip of about 45 miles). Also, they may travel
the Fence route in one direction only, continuing to another
*Sonoma County Traffic Department Accident Reports for 1973
and 1974.
57
58
destination, or returning to their point of origin by another route.
The viewing route from the east would be via the following roads [see
Figures J-1 and J-2 (Appendix J) and 6*).
e Highway 101
e Old Redwood Highway
e Railroad Avenue
e Stony Point Road
e Meacham Road
e Pepper Road
e Walker Road
e Petaluma/Valley Ford Road
e Highway 1
@ Franklin School Road
e Marsh Road
The relationships among view of the Fence, existence (or lack)
of place to stop cars (along public right-of-way), and potential
traffic hazard have been studied in some detail in Appendix J.**
They provide a qualitative basis for some of the conclusions of
this section (and Appendix K).
A preliminary estimate of the visitor demand generated by the
Running Fence (total arrivals and access routes) was made on the
basis of crowd data from previous eventst+, the distance of the Fence
route from Bay Area population centers, and the probable sources of
Fence visitors.* It must be emphasized that this estimate is a
matter of judgment rather than calculation; the Running Fence will
be a unique event, with no real precedent to serve as a basis for
extrapolation from the past. Factors taken into account in the
estimation of numbers of visitors and the ways in which they will
disperse to view the Fence include the following’:
*Figure 6 appears here, and in Appendix K.
**This portion of the analysis was performed by ESA staff.
*Data. presented in Appendix K.
The Fenee will be visible during all daylight hours for
its proposed two-week display period. This distinguishes
it from single-occurrence events, such as sports events
or rock concerts, and makes it more like county fairs
and similar occurrences.
Unlike extended-duration events that occur at a fixed
site, the Fence will be visible at numerous points from
over 40 miles of public roads.
Although Christo's past projects drew relatively low
public attendance (leading, to the best of our
knowledge, to no unacceptable traffic congestion)
the total number of visitors attracted by the Fence
cannot be ascertained with certainty because of demogra-
phic differences between the Bay Area and the sites of
the prior projects.
Many viewers, even among those making a special trip to
view the Fence, may be satisfied with the view they
receive from the main approach routes, Highways 101 and
1, and therefore, will not disperse onto the cross-
county traffic-way.
Total attendance will depend on publicity to date,
particularly that associated with the environmental review
process, but also that associated with museum and lecture
events involving the applicant. It may depend even more
on the same kinds of publicity in the future. TV coverage
may either encourage or discourage viewing attendance.
Variation in daily attendance during the two-week display
period will depend on media publicity immediately prior
to and during that period. It is likely that attendance
will be higher on weekends than during the week, and that
it will build up over the two-week period, so that the peak
day will be the second Sunday, all other factors being equal.
Heat and lack of shade (easterly part of route) or fog
and wind (westerly part of route), and rise in gasoline
prices, may discourage some motorists from visiting and
viewing the Fence.
59
60
The resulting estimate of the total number of visitors on the
peak day (presumably the second Sunday) is expressed in the following
in terms of the probability of occurrence of several levels of
attendance:
VISITOR DEMAND ON PEAK DAY
Probability
of Occurrence
Number (Judgment ) Explanation
15,000 (5,000 cars)* 60% (probable)
30,000 (10,000 cars)* 30% (possible)
50,000 (16,700 cars)* 5% (top demand, though
only 10,000 cars may
be able to arrive,
due to limitations
of road network) **
The analysis indicated that about 80 percent of the Fence visitor
vehicles will approach the viewing area from the south and about
20 percent will approach from the north. It is anticipated that the
viewers, upon reaching the viewing area, will distribute themselves
over the local road network (see Figures J-2 and 6) according to the
following estimate:
Percent of
Roadway Visitor Vehicles
West Railroad Avenue WS
Stony Point Road (between Meacham
Road and Route 101) 35
Meacham Road--Pepper Road--Walker
Road--Petaluma/Valley Ford Road 20
Franklin School Road--Whitacker
Bluff Road LS
Route 1 north of Valley Ford 5
Route 1 south of Valley Ford iS
Route 101 north of Gravenstein
Highway 1
Route 101 south of Old Redwood
Highway interchange at Denman Flat 55*
Dispersed among other roads 20
*Three visitors per car (estimate for recreational travel).
**Result of analysis herein and in Appendix K.
*Visitor traffic on the section of Highway 101 between Graven-
stein Highway and Denman Flat may be as much as 65 percent of the
total, depending on visitor decisions on where to exit, which may
be influenced in part by back-ups on off-ramps.
Hourly traffic variations in general can be expected to resemble
those of summer Sunday recreational travel, e.g., arrivals starting
in mid-morning and continuing until about 3 PM. Similar patterns
can be expected on weekdays and weekend days, with the latter reach-
ing a higher level. The weekend to weekday variation should tend to
follow the two-to-one ratio observed for visitors to the Sonoma
County Fair and Sonoma County wineries.
While the vast majority of Fence viewers will view the Fence
from land vehicles, chiefly autos, some viewers may approach the
Fence route by air and water. Visitor arrival by boat to see the
coastal area is not expected to be heavy. The North Coast Harbor
Study for the Army Corps of Engineers (by JHK §& Associates) showed
that few recreational boaters are willing to leave the shelter of
San Francisco Bay and brave the long unsheltered route to Bodega Bay.
Roadways near the Fence route have a limited amount of capacity
available to absorb new traffic generated by Fence viewers. The
traffic impact of the viewing period will depend upon the volume of
vehicle usage relative to the capacities of specific roadways.
Vehicle usage is expected to vary from hour to hour and day to day.
Table 1 illustrates the relationship between level of service
(or driving ease) and hourly traffic volumes (capacities)- for
two-lane rural roads. The Table is appropriate for the two-lane
roads in the project area during normal, non-Fence periods. However,
the actual capacity under the conditions anticipated during the
viewing period may be one-half of these.* The narrower Type 3 and 4
roadways are assigned the same traffic capacity as the wider Type 2
(Setting Section) because parking would generally be prohibited
from the former and allowed along the Type 2 roadway. Route 101
has been estimated by CALTRANS to have a one-way peak hour capacity
of 3,000 vehicles on a viewing day.*
Too much traffic compared to road capacity (i.e., Level of
Service E to F) could lead to stop-and-go flow, traffic backups
onto the freeway, cars running out of gasoline, boiling radiators,
traffic accidents, and entrapment of emergency vehicles. Therefore,
it is necessary to assess the possibility of network capacity over-
load under the peak visitor conditions estimated above.
*Letter to Mr. George Kovatch, Sonoma County, from Mr. L. Newman,
CALTRANS, February 5, 1975. 61
62
—————— EEeeeEeeeSeEeEeeESEeEeSsSsSsSMMesFshsees— an
TABLE 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE, TWO-LANE RURAL ROAD
SS EeEeewre——
Hourly 2-way Level of i
Volume Service Operating Characteristics
400 A Ideal flow
900 B Free flow
1,400 G Stable flow; some car-fol lowing;
average speed 30 mph; a common
service level for design
1,700 D Approaching unstable flow;
average speed, 20 mph, greatly
restricted dur to car-fol lowing
2,000 E Maximum volume attainable, average
speed 10 mph. Level E is not
likely to be attained. Operation
may go directly from D to F
less than F Forced, congested flow with
2,000* unpredictable characteristics.
Stop and go, long queues
Source: Adapted from page 308, "A Policy on Design of Urban
Highway and Arterial Streets", American Association of
State Highway Officials
The descriptive operating characteristics apply to other
road types, including freeways. However, the associated traffic
volumes change with road type.
*As traffic demand exceeds 2,000, the resulting turbulence
reduces flow to less than 2,000.
Accurate assessment of the potential traffic impacts of the
Running Fence is precluded by a combination of uncertainties,
including those pertaining to the following:
® Maximum likely levels of visitor traffic
e Ratio between peak week-end visitor traffic and week-day
visitor traffic
e Hours when Fence visitor traffic would occur; percent of
daily visitor traffic in the peak (visitor) hour
6 Non-visitor ("'normal'') traffic during the display period
® Visitor-traffic splits on the affected road network
e Actual capacity of individual segments of the affected
road network, under potential traffic conditions during
Fenee display
e Variation in capacity among the different road types in
the affected road network
Therefore, the approach taken was to examine several critical
elements of the road network, under a series of assumptions.* The
road elements evaluated were: (a) Highway 101; (b) Walker Road;
(c) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road; and
(d) Highway 1, east of Franklin School (in Valley Ford itself).
Stony Point Road and Bodega Avenue were also investigated, but with
less confidence in the input data.
The assumptions were as follows:
e Total visitor "demand" on the peak day (second Sunday) is
10,000 vehicles (the 30 percent probability figure)
e While the normal weekend/weekday ratio of daily traffic
throughout the road network is about two to one, the ratio
of the peak-visitor-day (second-Sunday) Fence visitor
traffic to the Fence visitor traffic on the first day
(weekday) of display is about four to one. That is,
interest will develop as the display goes on.
*This examination was performed by ESA staff, after the receipt,
on October 17, 1975, of the traffic count data presented in Appendix K.
The results confirmed the main conclusions of Donald K. Goodrich, Con- 63
sultant to ESA, which had been based on the limited data available
im Juby, 1975.
64
Visitor-traffic splits throughout the road network are as
estimated earlier in this Section.
Visitor-traffic in the peak visitor hour is 15 percent
of daily visitor traffic. For "normal" traffic, the
figure is 10 percent.
In the absence of data on existing weekend traffic on
Highway 101, weekday maximum traffic levels can be
assumed to apply (as the setting) on weekends. Thissts
not unreasonable for a freeway segment that combines
business, commute, and recreational tratere.
Highway 101 peak hour capacity in the vicinity on a viewing
day is, as noted above, 3,000 vehicles (one-way), or 6,000
vehicles (two-way).
Capacity of the two-lane local roads during the viewing
period is, as noted above, one-half of the normal capacity,
because visitors will slow down and/or park to view the
Fence.
The approach used in estimating traffic levels of service
resulting from the addition of Fence visitor traffic to "normal" traf-
fic was as follows:
The calculation was for the peak (PM) hour on the second
Sunday.
The resulting peak hour total flow was compared to the above
criteria for capacity. For the two-lane rural roads, the
first comparison was against the flow criteria for Level of
Service C, as reduced by 50 percent to account for conditions
during viewing.
Once the situation for the peak day (second Sunday) had
been established, the situation on the average weekday
could be assessed. This would be needed for the develop-
ment of a contingency plan, to be based on traffic levels
experienced (after the fact) during the first weekdays of
viewing.
The initial assumption was that the visitor demand on the
second Sunday would be 10,000 vehicles (the 30 percent
probability figure).
The results of the evaluation were as follows (the calculated
flows represent normal traffic plus visitor traffic):
a)
Highway 101--The peak-hour second-Sunday one-way flow in
the segment of the freeway between Denman Flat and Gravenstein High-
way would be about 3,100 vehicles. This is greater than the capacity
of 3,000 stated above. That is, if the visitor demand reached 10,000
cars per day, Highway 101 would reach Level of Service F. On
Highway 101 south of Denman Flat, the flow would be slightly lower,
but still above the stated capacity. Since Highway 101 is the
principal access route to the Fence area, its northbound approach
carrying 55 percent of the total visitors and its southbound approach
carrying 15 percent of the total visitors, it appears to be the
controlling element in capacity analysis and in California Highway
Patrol decisions about requesting removal of the Fence. On weekdays,
the freeway capacity would not be reached, whether the assumption
used is a weekend/weekday visitor flow ratio of four to one or of
two to one. On the other hand, if the 30 percent probability assump-
tion of 10,000 visitor vehicles on the second Sunday is conservative,
weekday flows could be high enough to indicate this possibility,
while still remaining below capacity.
b) Walker Road--This segment of the (viewing) road network
experiences very little traffic normally; however, the road is
twisting and narrow (Type 4). The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way
flow is about 320 vehicles. This is well below the modified (50%
reduction) capacity of 700 (for Level of Service C). Therefore,
congestion should not be a problem, unless large numbers of visitors
try to stop along the shoulders for views (or photos) of the Fence,
Since the flows on the weekdays will be further below capacity,
visitor behavior on those days can foreshadow the potential problems
on the weekends, while not causing serious problems itself.
c) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road--
This segment of the (viewing) road network consists of both Type 2
and Type 3 road, but experiences much more traffic normally than does
Walker Road. The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow is about 660
vehicles. This is still below the capacity of 700 (for Level of
Service C), but close enough so that congestion from parkers or even
those who merely slow down to view the Fence may be a problem. Again,
experience on the first weekdays of the viewing period should provide
clues to the levels and the behavior of the expected weekend traffic,
and of their consequences.
d) ey 1, east of Franklin School Road (within the Town
of Valley Ford--This segment normally experiences higher traffic flows
than does the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road segment above. The peak-hour
second-Sunday two-way flow is about 680 vehicles. The same considera-
tion as those for Petaluma/Valley Ford Road to the east apply.
Further complications may result from the presence of the commercial
buildings along the road, coupled with the fact that the Running Fence
route crosses this road within the town, providing a further attraction
that may lead visitors to pull over.
e) Stony Point Road, north of Railroad Avenue--The only
available count for this road is a weekday figure, for the whole day,
of 1500 vehicles. If the normal Sunday traffic is assumed to be 65
66
the same, with 10 percent in the peak hour, then the peak-hour
second-Sunday two-way flow (normal traffic plus Fence visitors)
would be about 675 vehicles, still below the Level C capacity of
700 vehicles. However, if the normal Sunday flow is assumed to be
3,000 vehicles, the total peak-hour flow would then be about 825
vehicles, close to the Level of Service D capacity of 850. This
situation could create problems, particularly since perhaps one-
half of the visitors northbound on Stony Point might attempt to
turn left onto Meacham Road. Experience on the first weekdays
would again provide guidance as to what could be expected later,
while unacceptable congestion would probably not exist at the time.
f) Bodega Avenue, west of Pepper Road--This road segment is
not part of the viewing-road network. However, it may be attractive
as an access or departure road. Its existing Sunday peak-hour flow
is about 750 (two-way), which would be above (worse than) Level of
Service C, if the road were on the view network. Since it is not,
the capacities of Table 1 apply directly, so that existing Sunday
peak-hour flow is between Levels of Service A and B. Even if as much
as 35 percent of the total visitor flow were to use this approach
(an extremely unlikely prospect), the peak-hour second-Sunday flow
would still be below (better than) Level of Service C.
The main conclusion above is that 10,000 visitor vehicles are
the maximum that can be reasonably accommodated on the road network,
and that the controlling feature is that this level of demand would
cause Highway 101 to go to Level of Service F. Thus, a decision by
the California Highway Patrol to request. removal of the Running
Fence could be made on the expectation that such levels would be
reached on the first or second weekends, even if congestion had not
built up to unacceptable levels during the first weekdays. The
dominance of the potential Highway 101 buildup in the analysis and
decision is confirmed by the earlier conclusions of Mr.Goodrich
that a demand of 30,000 visitors (10,000 visitor vehicles) "produces
Service Level ''F"' on 101 (Remove Fence if over 30,000 anticipated.)"
Mr. Goodrich had concluded also that if as many as 35-40% of
the visitor vehicles attempted to use the principal viewing
trafficway between Highways 101 and 1, the controlling road network
would shift away from the freeway, even at somewhat lower total
flows. This is a more conservative judgment than the above analysis
of individual segments would indicate. However, it takes into account
the interior road network as a whole; of particular importance is
the effect of left turns at different intersections, depending on
whether the visitor vehicle is going from west to east or from
east to west.
Both analyses indicate, however, that with the expected
gradual buildup of visitor interest there would be time to implement
a series of contingency plans, including the ultimate mitigation of
requiring removal of the Fence.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures will be presented first in terms of a
composite of seneral suggestions by the preparers of this FIR and
measures already planned by the applicant. Then the rationale for
a traffic management plan, suggested by Mr. Goodrich, will be
presented in some detail.
Viewers should be kept off private property and discouraged
from public roads that present hazards: (1) roads that are not
through-roads; (2) too-narrow roads; (3) roads without turn or
easy connection to other roads. Monitors and off-duty Sheriff's
deputies will be hired by the applicant to protect private property
and to guide traftic flow.* The applicant does not propose to
provide parking areas. Therefore, in general, traffic should be
kept moving smoothly. For those points where views of the Rumning Fence
are especially clear or panoramic, the tendency of the curious
(especially photographers) would be to stop. If there is no safe
place to stop, a potential hazard exists and traffic should be
kept moving. Sheriff's deputies will guide traffic while monitors
(college students and others) will guard private property using
two-way communication for assistance. The number of persons con-
trolling traffic and protecting private property will be determined
on the basis of need (100 anticipated on 8-hour shifts). Need will
vary with time: (1) weekday vs. weekend day; (2) day vs. night.
Road construction and maintenance activities should not be
scheduled during the viewing period. All planned Sonoma County
roadwork in the Fence route area will be completed by September
1976 (Sonoma County Public Works Department, letter of August 26, 1975
to ESA), most of it in calendar 1975.
If private parking is provided by private landowners**
(separate from any part of the applicant's proposal or plan),
guidance should be received in advance by the landowner from public
authorities * in order not to create more traffic problems because
of egress and ingress conflict on roads.
*Only uniformed police officers can control traffic on public
roads per se.
**Some landowners have stated interest in providing parking on
their land.
*Captain Eric Denton, Commander, California State Highway Patrol,
Santa Rosa Area; Sonoma County Traffic Engineer; Sonoma County
Sheriff's Office.
67
68
If traffic becomes too congested for stopping for viewing and
photographing, it could be prohibited, except for emergencies;
even whole roads could be closed to visitors.* It the viewing/
stopping hazard becomes dangerous to public safety, even after
employment of the suggested mitigation measures, the ultimate
mitigation measure can be employed: remove the Fence panels
(especially prior to the first weekend) before the end of the
viewing period. The applicant has agreed to this condition in
advance; the decision will be made by Captain Denton.
A Traffic Management Plan for the Running Fence should be
prepared by a (consultant) traffic engineer for the following
roadways:
@ Route 101 between Petaluma Boulevard South and the Rohnert
Park Expressway. Consideration should be given also to the
Section of Route 101 south of Highway 37, because of the
possible traffic conflicts with the Renaissance Pleasure
Faire
@ Route 1 from Valley Ford to Tomales Road
e Principal viewing trafficway: Railroad Avenue--Stony Point
Road--Meacham Road--Pepper Road--Walker Road--Petaluma/
Valley Ford Road--Franklin School Road
@ Whitacker Bluff and Fallon/Two Rock Roads
@ Bodega Avenue (From Petaluma/Valley Ford Road to Pepper
Road, and perhaps points east)
@ Pepper Road
@ Stony Point Road from Gravenstein Highway to Petaluma Boulevard
North
@ Old Redwood Highway from Gravenstein Highway to Petaluma
Boulevard North
e West Sierra Avenue
@ Roblar Road
*Road closing, with the exception of the Estero Road situation,
may be unworkable. Estero Road is a county-maintained, one-way
road off Franklin School Road. It leads to a few parcels (Pozzi,
Gaver, Pellascio, and de San Antonio Compadres) at the coastal end
of the Fence route. The applicant has stated that he will not
accept road closures (exception of Estero Road) as part of the
project, because of their additional impacts. Instead, he accepts
removal of the panels as the ultimate mitigation measure.
The Traffic Management Plan will be able to use the available
count data in a more detailed way to analyze the principal viewing
trafficway for sensitive capacity areas. This knowledge, in turn,
should allow a further refinement of the maximum traffic volume
that can be absorbed (currently estimated at about 30,000 visitors/
10,000 cars per day) before the Fence is ordered to be removed. It
is also suggested that the plan address the use of publicity as a
traffic-control factor. For example, minimal publicity will
attract few visitors,while a publicity program will attract a great
many more. A carefully planned public information program could
give potential viewers driving directions that could assist them
in avoiding the mosttraffic-sensitive areas.* Other elements that
should be addressed by the Traffic Management Plan include road
closures**, one-way viewing routes, use of uniformed police
officers to guide traffic flow, temporary road signs’, flagmen,
and mass-transit utilization. The implementation of the plan would
depend on accurate traffic measurements starting on the first day
of viewing.
A Traffic Management Plan, whose framework is outlined below,
will prepare public authorities for any level of visitation that
is likely to occur. Contingency plans for three visitation levels
are suggested:
Level Number of Visitors
A Fewer than 4,500 visitors (1,500 cars)
per day
B 4,500 to 10,000 visitors (1,500 to 3,300
cars) per day
G more than 10,000 visitors (3,300 cars)
per day
The contingency plan for Level A should be implemented before
the first day of viewing. To prepare for Level B, elements such as
Signs should be prepared and their installation locations selected
*See Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study Area 3 report.
**As noted above, the applicant prefers removal of the Fence to
road closures (exception Estero Road).
*Approval for the road signing would have to be obtained from the
County Public Works Department.
69
70
before the first day of viewing. If the first few weekdays indicate
subsequent weekday or weekend visitation will exceed 1,500 visitor
vehicles per day, the signs should be installed immediately. The ~
plan for Level C has four alternatives. One of the four alternatives
should be selected and expanded after all the traffic count hourly data
are available and prior to any viewing.
The following is an explanation of the various contingency
levels and the appropriate actions to be taken.
Contingency Level A
For Contingency Level A, fewer than 4,500 visitors (1,500
cars) per day, regulatory signs for parking and access control
should be installed. These could be portable signs or temporary
signs made of low-cost material. The signs and their location
should be approved by the responsible jurisdiction. The parking-
control signs would contain the message "'No Parking" and should
be posted along all road Types 1, 3, and 4 (see Figure J-2,
Appendix J). Parking can be allowed along road Type 2, which has
adequate shoulder area. Other parking may be available at private,
off-road lots, at which some entrepreneurs may charge for parking.
A planned off-road parking program does not seem warranted, considering
the few spaces it could develop compared to those available along
road Type 2. A "Do Not Enter" sign should be posted at the entry to
road Type 5, Estero Road, because the single lane of this dead-end
road cannot accommodate two-way traffic.
Contingency Level B
At Contingency Level B, 4,500 to 10,000 visitors (1,500 to
3,300 cars per day), temporary guidance signs should be installed.
These signs should be placed at, and in advance of, intersections
along project-area trafficways. The signs should indicate turn
directions for those who wish to view more of the Fence or who wish
to return to major roads such as Routes 1 and 101.
For those motorists who travel most of the length of the Fence,
starting from Route 101, return is provided by use of Franklin
Scnool Road to Marsh Road to Middle Road to Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road. Another possible return is via Franklin School Road/Whitacker
Bluff Road.
Contingency Level C
For Contingency Level C, over 10,000 visitors (3,300 cars) per
day, four alternative mitigation measures are suggested. With
Alternative 1, uniformed personnel and flagmen would have specific
instructions for assigning rights of way to traffic to expedite
flow and for turning excess traffic away from congested areas.
For example, there is an existing truck pull-out where southbound
trucks can stop on Route 101 at the top of the hill north of
Railroad Avenue. From this stop, the Fence will be visible. The
stop should be closed by barrier or monitored by State Highway Patrol-
men on-site to avoid back-ups onto the freeway.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would allow more visitors to see the Running
Fence than would Alternative 1. However, these measures would
involve considerable advance planning that may not be warranted,
considering the fact that maximizing public viewing is not a major
goal of the project. Alternative 2 would implement a one-way flow
pattern along the principal trafficway.* With one-way flow, return
routes via other roads would be needed. To satisfy art objectives,
the flow should be reversible on different days, so that the Fence
could be viewed from both directions. This alternative would
require careful study to prepare a signing and policing plan to
deal with the complex changes in traffic movements.
Alternative 3 would institute bus tours for viewing.* Shuttle
lot parking areas would be required. To induce people to use the
buses, the main view route would have to be closed to general
traffic.* As the C level of visitation would probably occur only
on weekends, parking lots, such as at the Marin County Civic Center,
and buses, such as from Golden Gate Transit, may be available.
Alternative 3 would require extensive advance arrangements for
buses, drivers, parking areas and road controls, routing, signing
and publicity. The plan would also have to be capable of implementa-
tion with only about two days advance notice. For example, if
visitation is high during the first few weekdays, a decision to
activate the plan for the weekend would have to be made quickly.
Alternative 4 would take down the Fence in order to remove it
as an attraction. Someone should be authorized to order the Fence
removal** and should have at his or her disposal a pre-planned
-publicity program that will announce the Fence has been removed.
The decision could be made prior to a weekend based on weekday
observations of crowd size.
*The applicant has indicated that he would not accept these
measures as part of the project, preferring the ultimate measure,
removal of the Fence (Alternative 4).
**See letter from Captain Eric Denton, attached to this section. 7]
The applicant has agreed to this condition.
SDMTIND aS au Bea ay
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
3854 Santa Rosa Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 9501
2
Tig
August 27, 1975 Ee Vial eit
oS
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORMIA 94404
Ms. Gerry Wolff
Environmental Science Associates
1291 East Hillsdale Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
Dear Ms. Wolff:
Regarding the "Christo" running fence proposal, I wish to
clarify my current position and advise you of agreements
reached with the Christo staff since my letter of February
10, to the Sonoma County Planning Board.
Current agreements provide that I may order any portion of
the fence, which I deem is creating a traffic hazard, re-
moved. My particular concern is that portion in sight of
Highway 101 but the staff has agreed that this authority is
extended to any portion or all of the project. With this
proviso I have no objection to the fence being constructed
as originally planned.
My criteria would be delays and/or accidents caused by
people slowing on the freeway to observe the display or con-
gestion on the secondary road net to the point of creating
a serious threat to local residents by denying the roads to
emergency services or delays of through traffic for unreason-
able times.
In addition, the Christo group has agreed to reimburse the
State for the cost of our additional traffic control per-
sonnel which may be necessary because of the display.
Commander
Santa Rosa Area
9. ENERGY
Setting
CEQA* was amended, effective January 7, 1975, to require that
the discussion of mitigation measures in an EIR include a discussion
of measures to reduce the inefficient and unnecessary consumption
of energy. There is no need to describe the existing setting, since
no current uses of energy on-site will change with the project.
Impacts
Planning, engineering, and construction of the Running Fence
will result in the consumption of energy and material resources.
The impact of the latter is relatively small since most of the
structural elements of the Fence, including the fabric, poles and some
cables, are existing materials which are surplus to, or deemed
unsuited for, their originally intended use.
Energy is the major resource that will be consumed by the project.
The energy budget for construction and removal of the project is
dominated by the fuel consumption of the vehicles and auxiliary
machinery used. A rough estimate of the motor fuel needs during
construction and removal of the Fence is as follows:
construction - 3,800 gallons
removal - 800 gallons
For comparison purposes, 800 to 900 gallons of gasoline is an approxi-
mate average consumption for one year of family driving of a standard
size automobile.
The principal consumption of energy, however, will result from
the visitors to the Fence. Estimates of visitor origin distributions,
travel distances, and the resulting total access mileage (on a per-
thousand-visitor basis) are contained in Table K-2 (Appendix K).
These data were used to estimate fuel consumption, under two
travel-mode alternatives, by visitors in traveling to and from the
Fence and in viewing the Fence.+*It was assumed that twice the length
*California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, which deals with
environmental quality, the environmental evaluation of public and
private projects, and the preparation and evaluation of environmental
impact reports.
**This is in every way a worst‘case analysis. It assumes that
all visitor vehicles will travel the full length of the Fence route,
and that all visitors would not have been consuming fuel in other ways 73
on the day(s) they visited the Fence.
74
of the road system along the Fence route, or about 45 miles, would
be traveled by each visiting vehicle during viewing of the Fence.
The estimated fuel consumption per thousand visitors is presented
in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FUEL CONSUMPTION IN ACCESSt AND VIEWING.
GALLONS OF BUS/AUTO/AIRCRAFT FUEL CONSUMED PER 1000 VISITORS
VISITOR ORIGIN Access Alternative Viewing Alternative
A* B* A B C**
(auto/air) (bus/auto/air) (auto) (bus/auto) (bus)
Sonoma and Marin Counties 260/0 13.7/208/0
Other Bay Area Counties 1149/0 38.7/1002/0
Other, California 2541/760 9.5/2505/760
Other, Out of State 261/500 0/261/500
Total Fuel Consumed 4211/1260 61.9/3976/1260 1071 23.3/983 281
F"Worst-case" analyses, (based on assumption of Table K-2), which
assign the full fuel consumption of the trip to Fenee-viewing, regardless
of possible other reasons for the trip, yield upper-limit estimates. If
each trip (except an access trip by bus) is assumed to be dual-purpose
(i.e., to visit Point Reyes and the Fence) fuel consumption assignable
to access to the Fence would be halved. The halved values would represent
reasonable lower-limit estimates for fuel consumption for access; fuel
consumption for viewing would not be altered. Similarly, jet fuel con-
sumption for visitor access by commercial aircraft is not generally
attributable to the Fence, since most flights have empty seats (i.e.,
the aircraft would be flying in any event).
*See Table K-2 for fractional splits for Alternatives A and B.
**Alternative C is viewing restricted to bus riders only.
For a '"'worst-case'' weekday, with a maximum of 25,000 visitors,
the estimated total day's fuel consumption would be:
Access and viewing Alternative A--gasoline 132,000 gallons
jet fuel 31,500 gallons
Access and viewing Alternative B--diesel fuel
(bus ) 2,130 gallons
gasoline 124,000 gallons
jet fuel
(aircraft) 31,500 gallons
For a weekday rate of about 15,000 visitors and a weekend daily
rate of about 30,000 visitors, a total of about 270,000 visitors would
view the Fence during the full two week period. The total fuel
consumption would be:
Access and viewing Alternative A--gasoline 1.43 million gallons
jet fuel 0.34 million gallons
Access -and viewing Alternative B--diesel fuel .02 million gallons
gasoline 1.34 million gallons
jet fuel 0.34 million gallons
More modest visitor daily attendance rates or a shorter attendance
period, either of which would reduce total attendance, would result in
decreased energy use.
Mitigation
Resource use by the Fence will, with the major exception of fuel
consumption, be temporary. Materials from the Fence will.be given
to the landowners for their own use on-site or for sale as surplus.
Consumption of fuel in the construction and removal of the Fence,
although not inconsequential, is small when compared to quantities of
fuel estimated for visitor use. No measures are proposed to mitigate
this small consumption.
The total consumption of fuel by the public during the viewing
period can be reduced by: maintaining traffic flows to eliminate fuel
waste in traffic jams; encouraging visitors to ride 4 or more in each
car; and, most effective of all, encouraging visitors to ride in buses
(and/or limiting auto use on area roads). Measures taken to improve
the transportation energy-efficiency of the visitors will be the most
effective in reducing the total energy consumption related to the
Fence. The potential fuel saving (Table 2 ) from just using buses
for viewing is about 790 gallons of fuel [281 gallons diesel (C) vs. 75
1,071 gallons gasoline (A)] per thousand visitors. This represents
about a 74% saving in fuel use for viewing, in addition to the
resource-utilization advantage of using diesel vs. gasoline as motor
fuel.
76
BIOLOGICAL/PHYSICAL
1. | ECOLOGY
a. Marine Biology*
1) Setting--Physical Description of the Area
The termination point of the Running Fence is a moderately
exposed intertidal area of the Sonoma County coastline at about
Soon lotee ons Nel 22-eooN. 29.4" W. This. portion of the coastiume
is a rocky intertidal region almost midway between Estero Americano
to the north and Estero de San Antonio to the south and lies within the)
semi-embayment produced between Tomales Point to the south and
Bodega Head to the north. The region of immediate concern is a
strip of very steep rocky coastline of approximately 1500 feet in
length delimited on either side by very steep slopes. Access can
be gained to the cliffs above the designated area only by crossing
private land, and necessitates walking several miles or the use of
a four-wheel drive vehicle over open country. Final access must be
made by foot down a very steep cliff to the center of the study area.
The slope immediately above the intertidal area shows signs
of considerable erosion with both rock and dirt from slide activity
accumulating along the bottom of the slope and there are signs of
severe erosion on the two cliffs limiting the study area to the
north and south.
To facilitate a discussion of this intertidal region, it has
been arbitrarily subdivided into four areas (Area 1, 2, 3, and 4)
as illustrated in Figure 7. These areas are based predominantly
on topographical features. For reference purposes, the figure also
includes the ranges of the various intertidal biotic zones according
to tidal datum (=mean lower low water, 0.0 feet).
*This subsection was prepared by Dr. Welton L. Lee, California Academy
of Sciences, under direct contract with the Sonoma County Planning
Department. It covers the environmental impact of the Running
Fence on intertidal and subtidal communities. The study area was
visited on September 5, and September 8, 1975. The first visit
allowed for preliminary observations to be made during a high tide
(+5.0 ft.) (tidal datum is taken as mean lower low water); detailed
observations of the biological communities were made during the low
tide period (0.0 ft.) on September 8. Observations by other
investigators are cited specifically in the text.
*( 4a7eM MOL | Vauv AGNLS ADOTOIG JNIYWW 40 NOILWA313
Jamo, ura = ) wnzeg LeplLz 0F BALZeLeU Joo} UL
uaALB St qUuBLoY LeplL}? sy, “SauoZ IL}ZOLq pure
(p pue ‘e *Z ‘| Pauy) Seauy pezeubLsap Burmous
eaue Apnys ay} JO UOLZDAS-SsOUD ILyeuMeUbeLg
TVaILuaLNI-MOT
‘y INOZ L aos
a ss ~
,0°O = = oe
TVGILYILNI-GIW ‘€ INOZ
/9 C+ om SS eS
ja et es
TVGILUJILNI HOIH ‘2% INOZ
OCS Fe ae ae a a m2 ee =e a SS 2 Ee Se
TWGILMILNI YiddN ‘| INOZ
te SSS Se =P GSS a Ea
Z 3undi4
77
78
Area 1: Area 1 is composed chiefly of rock rubble and very
large boulders. The area encompasses a tidal range from about +4.0
feet to +10.0 feet. This area, closest to shore, encompasses the
supralittoral or splash zone, the upper intertidal (+5.0 feet to
+7.0 feet) and part of the high intertidal (+2.6 feet to +5.0 feet).
The rock and ,yboulders here have apparently accumulated both from
slide activity and from rock movement due to very severe wave
action. Coarse gravel, cobble, and small rocks are interspersed
in between the boulders and rock rubble.
Area 2: Area 2 includes the high intertidal (+2.6 feet to
+5.0 feet and a portion of the mid-intertidal (0.0 feet to +2.6
feet) and is similar in nature with fairly large boulders sitting
on a rock and gravel substrate. The northern and southern thirds
of the study area are rocky with the central portion consisting of
a gravel to cobble beach interspersed with a few large boulders.
Area 3: The mid-intertidal (0.0 feet to +2.6 feet) and low
intertidal (-2.0 feet to 0.0 feet) are included in Area 3. This
area consists of large boulders set on a gravel and cobble sub-
strate extending seaward from about 25 to 100 yeards. The tops of
the rocks closest to shore reach to about the +3.5 foot level.
Offshore, the rocks are barely submerged at about a 0.0 foot tidal
level. The slope here is moderately steep with an even steeper
drop at the outer edge.
Area 4: The steep drop at the outer edge of Area 3 drops to
a subtidal (-20 feet to -40 feet) sand substrate, Area 4.
The entire intertidal is semi-protected by a series of offshore
rocks and/or reefs which are more extensive to thenorth. These
occur out to a distance of approximately 1000 feet or more from
shore.
There is much evidence of extreme scouring and heavy wave
action. Virtually all of the rocks in the intertidal and splash
zones are highly polished as a result of this scouring. The gravel
beach area has a berm of cobble several feet high and the entire
intertidal and supralittoral area is strewn with debris including
much algal and benthic invertebrate material torn loose from lower
intertidal zones offshore, as well as several logs of considerable
size.
The area can be generally designated as a moderately steep
rocky intertidal, often swept by heavy seas, and showing evidence
of considerable scouring by rocks and/or sand.
Off the Central California Coast, we find that wave action,
current, and temperature are largely influenced by a series of
marine seasons. Three distinct hydrographic periods have been
elucidated by Solin and Abbott, 1963. These are:
1. The Upwelling Period: This occurs from March to July
or August and is the longest of the three periods. It is dominated
by winds from the north or northwest and by considerable upwelling
of deeper, colder water. Coastal conditions are usually moderately
calm and strongly influenced by heavy fog which is a result of the
interaction of the cold upwelled water on warmer, moist air above.
2. The Oceanic Period: This occurs in September and October
when the winds from the northwest are reduced, when upwelling
essentially ceases and when, as a result, temperatures are highest
along the coast. This season is characterized by generally very
warm and calm sea conditions.
3. The Davidson Current Period: This lasts roughly from
November to sometime in February and is characterized by winds from
the south, declining sea temperature and domination by a northerly
flowing current, the Davidson Current, which because of the Coriolis
effect banks up against shore. This is the period of our winter
storms and the roughest seas.
Knowledge of the effects of these hydrographic "seasons"
suggests that the greatest scouring in the area would occur during
the Davidson Current Period when winter storms would cause heavy
wave action to penetrate the protection afforded by the offshore
rocks and reefs. The period with least wave action and scouring
would be the Oceanic Period when seas are calmest and the weather
most often clear and warm. It is this latter period which has been
selected for the construction and viewing of the Running FEnce.
2) Setting--Biological Description of the Area
Comparison of the study area to other Central California inter-
tidal regions.
At all tidal levels, the populations observed were typical for
the kind of habitat in which they were found. There was no evidence
of endangered species or unusual or peculiar organisms that might
be considered as being of special biological significance.* The
area is typical for exposed intertidal regions subject to severe
*Local biologists, familiar with the area, were consulted and concurred
that the area was not biologically unique (see Appendix B, Supplementary
Contact List , prepared by Dr. Lee).
79
80
scouring. For this reason, the communities represented are more
impoverishedthan the usual, moderately protected, intertidal areas
along the California Coastline.
The assemblages seen at the study area are common to multitudes
of intertidal sites along the Central California Coast and do not
represent unusual or unique biological systems. Detailed biological
description follows.
a) Area 1: Although it was easy to see that wave splash
reached the higher rocks in this area, as evidenced both by direct
observation during high tide and by the occurrence of a fine growth
of a bacterial and diatom scum over the seaward surface of these
rocks, there was little evidence of any other organisms. The sole
resident was the maritime isopod Ligia (Megaligia) occidentalis
Dana, 1853. Large populations of this isopod resided in the cracks
and crevices of these rocks but the barnacles and limpets often
expected in such a location were not to be found. These upper
rocks showed signs of severe scouring and weathering and this one
factor probably excluded the permanent appearance of any other
organisms. In short, this zone was dominated by a single isopod
species and little else but a very sparse bacterial-diatom film.
Below the splash zone, the rocks were severely scoured and no organisms
were evident even under the rock and cobble substrate.
b) Area 2: From about the +5.0 foot level to about +2.5 feet,
the biological community consisted chiefly of littorines, limpets
and barnacles. The highest areas of this zone had very extensive
populations of the two common intertidal littorine molluscs, Littorina
Planaxis Philippi, 1847 apd Littorina scutulata Gould, 1849. L. planaxis
was relatively sparse but the populations of L. scutulata were very
large. L. planaxis usually occurs at a slightly higher tidal height
than L. scutulata and in this region, this relegated these molluscs
to the very tops of the larger boulders. It is probable that inade-
quate space was available for L. planaxis to become as abundant as
the other species. Throughout this zone were to be found very large
populations of limpets. Chief among those found in the area were
Collisella digitalis (Rathke, 1833) and Collisella scabra (Gould, 1846)
with some Notacmea persona (Rathke, 1833) occurring in cracks and
crevices. These populations were sparse on the seaward faces of
the boulders except in cracks and fissures in the rock, but much more
extensive on the sides and backs of these same rocks. Immediately
below were extensive populations of two barnacles, Balanus glandula
Darwin, 1854 and Chthamulus dalli Pilsbry, 1916. An occasional specimen
of Chthamulus fissus Darwin, 1854 was to be found at the higher inter-
tidal areas. These populations were extensive in more protected
places such as rock surfaces protected by other surrounding rocks,
or the sides of rocks most protected from the prevailing wave action.
At the lower portion of their range, they formed extensive mats over
many of the boulders.
The last species in this zone of any note were two gastropod
molluscs. One, Tegula funebralis (A.Adams, 1855) was only found
occasionally in dense clusters at the bases of the rocks in Zone 1,
and always in the most protected areas. The second mollusc,
Nucella emarginata (Deshayes, 1839) was scattered throughout the
barnacle covered rocks.
DISCUSSION (Area 2)
Several interesting points were noted regarding the occurrence
of organisms in this portion of the intertidal. First, it was
obvious that while all of the species noted were to be expected at
this tidal level in such a habitat, their distribution was strongly
influenced by one factor, exposure to wave action. Much of the rock
surface on which these organisms could reside was highly polished
due to abrasion by both rock and sand. In these areas, no organisms
could be found. This principally occurred on the seaward face of
rocks and at their bases where they were scoured by the gravel and
cobble substrate. Distribution of almost all of those species
noted was highly irregular and a perusal of this distribution pattern
could be utilized to elucidate small scale current patterns and
local wave exposure. Perhaps most interesting was the size-class
distribution evident in most of these populations. In the center of
the intertidal study area where wave action and scour was greatest,
the populations showed the domination of one size class, usually
smaller, younger animals. For example, populations of Littorina
scutulata Gould, 1849 showed a single size class (about 2 mm) in the
central, more exposed region. To the north and south where offshore
rocks afforded substantial protection from wave action, the popula-
tions were represented by specimens of all size classes with no single
size Class predominating. The same phenomenon was most notable also
in populations of barnacles. Presumably, the one size class seen
in the more exposed areas represents a single settlement which probably
is substantially destroyed at the outset of the winter storms. It
should also be noted that, for many of these organisms, larval
settlement itself could well be prevented as a result of wave shock
and scour. To the north and south in more protected areas, mortality
is probably due to a variety of causes, none quite so severe as the
scouring noted above, and the organisms can survive over a considerably
longer time allowing for a more mixed population structure.
The littorines and limpets, representing the vast majority of
organisms in this area, are already adapted to heavy wave action by
their morphology and/or through behavioral means. They feed
predominately upon the abundant bacterial and diatom scum covering
the rocks. This source of food also is virtually unaffected by
wave action. Barnacles, on the other hand, are particulate feeders
dependent upon suspended material brought to them by currents and
waves. Barnacles, however, are highly susceptible to scouring and
while food is certainly not a critical factor in this location, 8]
82
their distribution is severely limited as a result of scouring activity.
This is true also for Tegula funebralis (A. Adams, 1855) which, in
this area, feeds predominantly on algal debris thrown up by the wave
action. Its distribution is largely influenced by the combination of
availability of food and protection from heavy wave action.
The chief predator, principally on the barnacle Balanus, is the
Gastropod Mollusc Nucella emarginata (Deshayes, 1839) which is even
more restricted in its distribution for the same reasons. One species,
Tegula funebralis (A.Adams 1855) has a very limited distribution but
is present here as a direct result of heavy wave action, which
distributes algal wrack up into the intertidal, where it serves as a
rich source of food. It is to be noted that this animal likewise can
utilize attached algae and diatom scum for food but prefers wrack,
especially brown algae. wNucella were seen only in areas where there
was sufficient relief on the rocks to allow them to retreat from the
more exposed areas.
c) Area 3: The most apparent feature of this area is the
presence Of sparse aggregations of the red alga Endocladia muricata
(Postels and Ruprecht) J.G. Agardh, on the tops of the rocks closest
to shore. This occurs on most of the rocks whose tops do not fall
below about the +3.0 foot level. In the central part of this portion
of the intertidal area, the tops of the rocks may serve as a substrate
for organisms other than the Endocladia, depending on the degree of
protection afforded from wave action. In the mo¥e-protected areas,
one finds either large masses of the barnacle Balanus glandula
Darwin, 1854 (with Chthamalus dalli Pilsbry, 1916 and Chthamalus fissus
Darwin, 1854) or sparse mats of the alga Pelvetiopsis limitata
(Setchell) Gardner with some Fucus distichus Linnaeus, below. On
rocks with a more-flattened surface, some Mytilus californianus
Conrad, 1837 may be found interspersed with the gooseneck barnacle
Pollicipes polymerus Sowerby, 1833. Populations of both of these
organisms, however, are very sparse.
In the most protected areas, namely those to the north and
south extremes of the study area, the rocks show a sparse cover of
Pelvetiopsis limitata (Setchell) Gardner with massive growths of red
alga Porphyra perforata J.G. Agardh.
Immediately below this uppermost band of organisms, the rocks in
Area 3 all show a more or less thick skirt of red algae. This band
includes Gigartina papillata (C.A. Agardh) J.G. Agardh, Gigartina
agardhi Setchell and Gardner, and other red algae typical of this zone.
It should be noted that the tidal ranges of the bands of organisms in
Area 3 show considerable variation depending on the degree of exposure.
Likewise, it is important to note that the various algal bands mentioned
all support their usual complement of microfauna. For example, the
Endocladia supports substantial populations of gammarid amphipods
such aS Oligochimus lighti Barnard, 1969, and the Porphyra shelters
large populations of the gastropod mollusc Barleeia, possibly
B. baliotiphila Carpenter, 1864.
Below this band of red algae, the effects of scouring were most
notable and the plants and animals normally found at this tidal level
were not present. This area was essentially bare, at times polished,
and supported only one macrofaunal species in any abundance at all.
This was the starfish Pisasterochraceus (Brandt, 1835). This star-
fish was exceedingly abundant just below the skirt of red algae and
especially on those rocks supporting large barnacle populations.
Other than this single species, little else was visible in the central
portion of the study area with the exception of occasional strands of
the brown alga Egregia menziesii (Turner) Areschoug and, at the
very outer edge of the rock shelf, the brown alga Cystoseira osmundacea
(Menzies) C.A. Agardh. In the more-protected areas to the north and
south of the study area, the region below the skirt of red algae
supported little else than encrusting and erect coralline algae with
their associated microfauna. The only obvious macro-invertebrates
were the.sea anemones Anthopleura elegantissima (Brandt, 1835) in the
shallower portions and A. xanthogrammica (Brandt, 1835) in deeper
water. Both of these anemones were almost always found in bare rock
and cobble. The usual splendid array of tunicates, sponges, hydroids,
etc. which characterize this lower intertidal zone were nowhere to be
seen and once again, the apparent reason was scouring.
DISCUSSION (Area 3)
The rock shelf of Area 3 is not dissimilar from other central
coastal intertidal areas of the same tidal range. The populations
seen are all typical of their respective tidal heights and the mid-
intertidal area in particular supports the kinds of populations
normally expected. The major predators of these populations are
starfish, which feed on sessile forms such as barnacles and bivalve
molluscs, and intertidal fishes and birds, which prey upon those
animals living on the various algae found in the area. The greatest
number of organisms noted in this intertidal area are either filter
feeders such as Balanus or herbivores feeding on the attached algae.
Once again, the influnce of wave action and scouring were notable.
The rocks in this area showed essentially a "'cap'' of growth below
which was little more than bare rock. The usual rich and diverse
lower intertidal zone was essentially bare and the delicate organisms
which should be common here were nowhere to be found.
d) Area 4: Direct observations were not made on this area.
In a region such as this, dominated by scouring and heavy wave action,
one would suspect considerable movement of sand which would preclude 83
84
any large, permanent populations of organisms. While no observations
could be made, it is probable that the sand area in the deeper water
would be essentially bare or would support small populations of
organisms which would disappear at the outset of heavy seas.*
OTHER NOTES
Two California sea lions were observed during the study period
(September 5 and 8) and possibly a single harbor seal near the off-
shore islets which appeared to be rich and less subject to the scour-
ing seen intertidally.
Birds also are present in some numbers and diversity along the
immediate coast area. On July 22, 1975, the black-bellied plover,
the marsh hawk, the turkey vulture, the cormorant, the California
brown pelican, the black oyster catcher, and various gulls were
observed by T.H. Lindenmeyer (ESA) and B. Heneman (representing
Running Fence Corporation) .
3) Impact--Description of Changes within the Intertidal
and Subtidal of the Study Area as a Result of the Project
_ Details of the changes to be made can be obtained elsewhere.
Suffice to say that there is no construction within the intertidal
itself. In addition, the pole closest to the ocean will be located
near the bottom of a grassy slope which ends at a lip approximately
20 feet above the high tide line of the study area. That pole will
be situated far enough on the landward side of the lip so that guy
anchors running seaward from the pole will be set in solid ground.
These anchors will be set back from the lip so as not to contribute
to sloughing. The anchors will be tested to working load. No anchors
or anchor cables will be any closer to the intertidal zone than the
top of the lip.
From the top of the last pole (approximately 40 feet above the
intertidal), the top cable (7/8ths inch wire rope) will run seaward
approximately 550 feet, where it is attached to the apex of a V-shaped
bridle. The legs of the bridle extend seaward another 450 feet to
anchors, the type of anchor to be determined by the type of bottom
(Danforth 200-H, if the bottom is sand). The bridle is also of 7/8ths
inch wire rope. A flotation buoy at the junction of the top cable
and bridle will be used to give the top cable the propse sag for
display of the fabric panel. The top cable and bridle will be marked
with any buoys required by the Corps of Engineers or the Coast Guard.
*These judgments were confirmed by subsequent observations by
Environmental Research Consultants, Inc. See Appendix M.
During the maximum two-week display period in September, a 300
foot long nylon panel, tapered from a width of 18 feet where it is
attached to the first pole at the top of the cliff to a width of
about two feet at the seaward end, will be pulled out on the top
cable on blocks. The bottom of this loose-footed panel will be
weighted to keep it vertical in normal winds. The bottom of the
fabric panel will be under water a maximum of two feet toward the
seaward end. Crossing the intertidal zone, the bottom of the fabric
panel will be several feet above the water at high tide.
In short, the only changes to be made are 1) the deposition
of two sea anchors 1000 feet offshore; 2) the presence of a wire rope
through a small portion of the offshore water colum; 3) the suspen-
sion of nylon panels into the surface waters of the offshore area.
No changes are planned for the intertidal area itself. The timing
of these changes is as follows: one month construction period in
August, two weeks display in September and two weeks removal time.
The two oceanographers consulted (see Appendix B, Supplementary
Contact List) feel that if the seas are relatively calm, the combina-
tion of 7/8ths inch wire rope and two Danforth Anchors should be
sufficient to hold the Fence in place. Since the display of the
seaward portion of the Fence is planned for the oceanic period, our
calmest marine season, there is small likelihood of there being
sufficiently violent weather to dislodge this portion of the Fence.
However, should we experience unseasonable bad weather during the
display period, the worst that is likely to happen is the collapse
of the final shore poles and the disengagement of the anchors. In
such an event, the wire rope and nylon panels would drop into the
intertidal and swirl around. The wire rope would probably eventually
bury itself.
4) Impact--Discussion of Potential Impacts
Several significant environmental values can be identified with
the general region surrounding the study area. These are: scenic-
aesthetic, recreational, wilderness-pristine, geological, and biologi-
cal, including possible endangered species habitat, critical ecosystem,
and fish spawning and nursing.
a) Scenic-aesthetic
The study area is unquestionably a scenic region with great
aesthetic value. From the cliffs above the intertidal zone one
can obtain a vista of virtually the entire area between Bodega 85
86
Head to the north and Tomales Point to the south. It is a region of
sheer cliffs and rugged, rocky coastline.
The scenic and aesthetic values of the area must be placed into
context with present accessibility to the general public. Like
much of the land between Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio,
access to the sea is through private farm land. This access can only
be made over fenced, private land with no maintained roads. Presently,
the only people who have the benefit of the scenic and aesthetic
attributes of the area are those working on their farmlands. One
possible exception is the access afforded from the sea and/or air.
Noteworthy is the fact that normally, the region is severely restricted
to use by a very minor portion of the general public.
b) Recreational
In the study area, there are no facilities other than the
potential for fishing which lend themselves to recreational use.
Hiking, etc. is prohibited due to the private ownership of the land
and the difficult access. Fishing of any kind from shore is likewise
prohibited for the same reasons. Offshore fishing is possible but
highly improbable due to the abundance of offshore islets and submerged
rocks, not to mention the restrictions due to potential heavy wave
action.
In brief, the area, because of its location and isolation, now
has little recreational potential. The brief incurrence of the Running
Fence should not impose even short term changes on this potential .
c) Wilderness-pristine
The area in question can hardly be stated as being wilderness or
pristine. Intertidally, the area is similar to many hundreds of like
sites located along the California coastline. The changes to take
place are all of very short duration and should only impact the deeper
waters where the anchors are to be set, and perhaps a small portion
of the offshore surface waters. This impact will be minor as well as
temporary.
d) Geological (Biological Implications)
Two possible surface alterations can be foreseen. First, the
placement of the final on-shore support pole might possibly cause some
erosion and sloughing of rock or dirt onto the upper intertidal area.
Second , the placement of sea anchors offshore might conceivably disturb
the bottom sediments.
Both of these possibilities are almost meaningless in light of
the nature of the area. First, there already is and has been consider-
able erosion and sloughing of cliff material onto the intertidal - This
area, biologically, is one in which the present communities have either
adjusted to this natural phenomenon or are displaced as a result of
it. The possible addition of a minuscule amount of additional erosion
is considered to be irrelevant.
Similarly, there is every evidence of considerable sand and
rock movement offshore and intertidally. The presence of two sea
anchors for a two week period is likely to have no biological effect.
Any possible biological changes that might occur would be insignificant
relative to the natural phenomena which occur all of the time. Here,
no long term changes are anticipated and, if there are any short term
changes, they would be of no significance whatsoever.
e) Biological
To begin, the area is not of unique biological significance.
It is a habitat duplicated in hundreds of areas along the California
coastline and does not represent some critical ecological system.
There is no evidence or knowledge of endangered species present.
Both commercial and recreational fishing are prohibited already
as a result of almost impossible access both from sea or land and
the vagaries and extremes of wave action in the area.
In addition, staff member of the California Department of Fish
and Game* have indicated that the region is not a significant breed
ing or spawning area, and holds no special significance relative to
sports or commercial fisheries.
To assess the maximum potential impact on the biological communities
in the area, one can assume the worst possible sequence of happenings
likely to occur during the two to four week periad when part or all of
the Fence will be in place.
Two events could bring about some problems with the Fence which
might impact on the intertidal. First, the sea anchors could give
way during a severe storm. In this contingency, the cable could tear
loose from the anchors and the cable with the screen would be thrown
about the intertidal. In such an event, many organisms could possibly
be crushed or torn loose from the rocks. In addition, such a mass of
nylon and cable tangled on the rocks would pose a considerable clean-
up problem. Loose nylon panel and cable might be of some danger to
anyone in the immediate region during periods of heavy wave action.
Simultaneously, it is possible that part of the last shore pole would
be torn out, causing some sloughing of rock and/or dirt.
*Appendix B, Supplementary Contact List. 87
88
A second possibility is that the partially submerged nylon
panels would tend to accumulate surface debris and eventually give
way under the pressure. Likewise any large floating object such as
a log could conceivably break the cable or pull the anchors loose.
In either of these events, the impact would be of little or no
significance other than making removal more difficult. The area is
normally strongly influenced by scouring. The amount of additional
scouring incurred as a result of the proposed events would be far
less than occurs naturally. Those organisms destroyed would be
quickly replaced butsubject to the same potential destruction by
natural scouring forces.
Similarly, any erosion or sloughing of material resulting from
the collapse of the terminal pole on-shore would be minuscule rela-
tive to natural sloughing and erosion.
It is appropriate to note again that the California brown
pelican does utilize the shallow coastal waters where the Fence route
enters the ocean. It is impossible to predict how individual birds
of this species might react to the cables and fabric of the Fence.
It does seem likely that these would be very visible, and that the
irregular activity, as the Fence moves with wind and wave action,
would be sufficiently alarming to cause the birds to stay away from
the Fence. If this is the case, it is not anticipated that the Fence
will have any adverse effect upon the pelican.*
5) Mitigation
The plans for constructing and displaying the RUNNING FENCE show
considerable forethoughtrelative to the possible impact on the inter-
tidal and subtidal regions. First, construction and display are
programmed for the oceanic period when wind and wave action are
normally of little significance and seas are almost always calm.
Second, the display period is for only two weeks and the materials
are to be fully removed within two weeks of the display period.
Finally, the only physical disruption to the oceanic area is the
placement of two sea anchors and a small portion of the nylon panel
into the nearshore waters.
*Conclusion of T.H. Lindenmeyer (ESA), based on discussion with Mr.
Daniel W. Anderson, Federal Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
6) Discussion and Recommendations
The short period allowed for an investigation of the inter-
tidal area obviates any in-depth analysis of the marine communities
present. However, the area in question is so typical of other
exposed coastal areas along this coastline that a description of the
major faunal elements and the prevailing environmental conditions is
sufficient to make a reasonable assessment of the impact.
The placement of the terminal portion of the Running Fence poses
no irreversible or long term problems to the marine communities in the
area nor does it interfere in any way with recreational, scientific,
or other potential uses.
Short-term impacts are likely to occur only if the region is
beset with unseasonable stormy weather. The likelihood that this will
occur is minimal; even if it did occur it would bring about minimum
alteration of the local marine communities. Such alterations would
be almost assuredly less drastic than would occur due to natural
causes and would hardly be noticed against the background of natural
scouring frequenting this intertidal region.
The only major impact likely is the effect on the scenic and
aesthetic attributes of the region. Here, we are faced not with a
scientific assessment but with value judgments. It is likely that
there will be substantial numbers of people subscribing to totally
opposite assessments of the artistic and aesthetic values of the Fence.
Pertinent to this point is the fact that the Fence will be displayed
only for a two week period during a period representing the mildest
hydrographic conditions. Within two weeks of the display period, the
entire Fence is scheduled to be removed.
The only recommendation that can be made to reduce the possible
impact of the Fence on the intertidal is to require that the materials
utilized for the marine portion of the Fence meet the specifications
needed to withstand the stresses of reasonable storm activity even
though this is not likely to occur at this time. Consulting ocean-
ographers and engineers should be able to supply the necessary specifi-
cations. Assurances should also be made that the materials will indeed
be removed two weeks after the display period.
89
90
b. Terrestrial Biology*
1) SETTING--GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION AND THE ROUTE
The proposed route of the Running Fence lies virtually entirely
within a region known locally as "The Petaluma Wind Gap''. This is a
major Climatological feature of the north bay region which has _
recognizable effects on the local ecology. The generally low-lying
topography, consisting of the drainage systems of Estero Americano
and Estero de San Antonio, allows cool moist winds to flow directly
to the interior Petaluma Valley, a distance of approximately twenty
miles. The biological effects of these year-round winds are many and
obvious, both in the type of vegetation supported and in the increased
length of the growing season. The latter frequently entends into
early summer, in distinct contrast with immediately surrounding dry,
brown areas.
It is difficult to know in any detail what the original undis-
turbed vegetation of the Gap was since there has been considerable
disturbance for agricultural purposes for a period extending back .
into the nineteenth century. The severity of the disturbance appears
to be greatest in the eastern portions and least on the immediate
coast, but perhaps only on the final slope into the ocean can we see
relatively undisturbed vegetation.
Because of the long history of disturbance and the somewhat
unique conditions produced by the Wind Gap described above, it is
difficult to classify much of the proposed route into the usual vege-
tational and plant community categories. Most of the course of the
Running Fence would traverse heavily grazed rolling, to sometimes,
steeper, hills which form the topographic outlines of Americano
Creek and San Antonio (Stemple) Creek. Along the top of Meacham Hill
on the eastern end and for nearly twenty-four miles in a westward
trending zig-zagging pattern, the proposed route, for the most part,
stays on ridges and mid-slope levels. It rarely passes through or
even near any woody vegetation. Where this does occur, such as at
the crossings of several of the large tributaries of the Esteros (creeks),
the contact is minimal and insignificant in its potential impact on
plant life. Virtually all of the trees growing in the vicinity of the
route are woodlots or windbreaks of planted Blue Gum (£ucalyptus
globulus Labill.) or in one instance, the Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera
Schneid.).
*This subsection was prepared (under direct contract with the
Sonoma County Planning Department) by Drs. John R. Arnold and Charles
Quibell, both of California State College, Sonoma.
Much of the inland portion of the route might be best described
as modified Northern Oak Woodland*--without oaks. Whether the oaks
were removed at an earlier time or whether prevailing windy conditions
of the Wind Gap are responsible is difficult to determine.
Some apparently undisturbed sites in the vicinity of the eastern
end of the Wind Gap have good populations of Garry Oak (Quercus garryana
Dougl). However, a case could be made that these sites are more pro-
tected from the winds. Some north-facing slopes within the Gap may
have borne a Mixed Evergreen Forest, a possible remnant of which can
be seen near the intersection of Meacham and Pepper Roads opposite
Section 19 of the Fence Plan.
The vegetation which remains along the major portion of the route
can best be described as essentially a mixture of Valley Grassland
and Coastal Prairie species together with a high proportion of intro-
duced weedy annuals and perennials. Many Coastal Prairie and even
some Coastal Strand species are found considerably further inland
than is usual because of the climatic features of the Gap. Since
faunal distribution is most frequently predicated on vegetational
features, it is to be expected that a shallow "inland sag" may also
occur in Coastal animal populations in this area. Figure & shows
the route of the Running Fence, with potentially sensitive areas
identified.
2) SETTING--PLANT LIFE
a) Introduction
Botanical field observations were made only during the third
week in September 1975. Both lists and some prepared specimens of the
plants seen along the route were made. These will be filed at the
North Herbarium, California State College, Sonoma.
During the field work, a greater emphasis was made on the western
end of the route between Valley Ford and the coast both because of the
condition of the flora being more conducive to reasonable identifica-
tion and also because it was judged that this constituted the less
disturbed and therefore more disturbable portion. On-the-ground
observations of selected sites inland of Valley Ford were made as
well, including all areas expected to be sensitive as described be-
low; but the whole course of the route was not walked out.
*Vegetational terms follow Munz and Keck (1959). 9]
FIGURE 8
KA)
/ KC KS YN
Ys DA Hy ( ge}
CO)
. Rei
= a pene
aan Po <2 { la .. 4 Yep By ( { { ) ( i f : ~ é we
j Loe A KOog Soya SSE :
Ae L
AK{ i) SNE De Fr} =
7
/
\i
-
\
ASS
SUBJECT TO LAND OWNER ~~
= AND/OR COUNTY APPROVAL / \-
REL Za
Hh SS Se
94
—— Running Fence
is 0 2000’
1-10 Sensitive areas Laide FIGURE 8 SENSITIVE PLANT AREAS
REFER TO FIGURE 3
FOR BASIC LEGEND
=
. 2 ;
oo | < Es om Ne :
Me * je ee, ee det Guy)? 104
y pA SS \ iP a OA gf
aR a) Eiatae fe
x = |) J . oD “Be S
; 1) seal; SG \ ry yay
{ :
a ayes y/.
“ p ne Ss a Uwe 3
95
The following remarks must be predicated on a reiteration of the
fact that field observations have been made only during the September
dormant period and that a fully adequate picture which would allow
certainty of conclusions was not obtained. However, a careful study
of herbarium and literature records compiled from all of the major
collections in California institutions makes it possible to formulate
very strongly probable conclusions regarding the likelihood of
occurrence of plants considered ''Rare and Endangered Species" by
the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (Powell, et al, 1974).
One of the preparers of this (terrestrial biology) sub-section
(Charles Quibell) was an active contributor to the Society's Rare
Plant Project which produced the document referred to above. He is,
in addition, curator of the North Coast Herbarium of California, which
houses the very extensive collections of Milo S. Baker, who became,
during the first half of this century, the leading authority and most
prolific collector of the flora of Sonoma County. As a result, there
have been available either actual specimens or herbarium label records
of each of the CNPS "'Rare and Endangered Species" collected in this
region back into the nineteenth century. In may instances, these
records include habitat information, while in the others, knowledge
of the restrictive ecological niches of the individual species is
available from the literature. These, then, are the bases on which
the following comments and suggestions for mitigation are made.
b) Setting--Classification and Description of Sensitive Areas
Sensitive areas in or potentially within the forty-feet-wide
route easement Of Running Fence can be classified into three cate-
gories: 1) Coastal Bluff and immediate vicinity; 2) Freshwater
marshy or vernally wet areas; and 3) Rocky outcrops which have been
protected from grazing. All but one of the rare or endangered
species which could be encountered by the construction of Running
Fence would,with little doubt, be necessarily found in one or another
of these habitats. This one, Chorizanthe valida Wats. (Sonoma
chorizanthe) is described as occurring on "sandy soil of coastal
mesas in Sonoma and Marin Counties". No individual of this species
were seen in the field observations in preparation of this report, .
but due to the conditions of the area in mid-September, it is possible
that they were overlooked.
e Coastal Bluff and Vicinity
Two plants could very well occur within the easement of the Running
Fence in the last hundred yards before it enters the Pacific. They
were not seen on September 13, but could have been missed because of
the unfavorable season. These are: Arabis blepharophylla H. § A.
(Coast rock-cress) which has been collected on Bodega Head and at
Larkspur Rock (about one mile inland from Bodega Harbor on the south
side of Highway 1), as well as further south in Marin County; and
Agrostis blasdalei Hitchc. var. marinensis Crampton (Marin bent-grass)
97
98
the nearest collection locality for which is "among rocks just
east of Dillon Beach".*
® Freshwater Marshy or Wet Areas
There is a maximum of five rare or endangered plant species
which might occur in these habitats within the easement. Most have
only been collected in marshes of some size, examples of which do not
occur within the easement of the Running Fence:
Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. far. sonomensis (Sonoma alopecurus)
"Marshy places on Pt. Reyes and in Sonoma County"
Carex albida Bailey (White sedge) "Open marshy places below
300', Sonoma County"
Campanula californica (Kell.) Hell. ''Freshwater swamps
near coast, Marin to Mendocino County"
Potentilla hickmanni Eastw. (Hickman's cinquefoil) "Rare in
scattered marshy places, Sonoma to Monterey County"
Rhynchospora californica Gale (California beaked rush) ''Bogs,
Ledum Swamp, Pt. Reyes, and Pitkin Marsh, Sonoma County"
® Rocky Outcrops from Near the Coast to Well Inland:
(Big enough to be ungrazed
The Marin bent-grass, mentioned above under Coastal Bluff, more
likely the Yellow Larkspur (Delphinium luteum Heller), and the Coast
rock-cress (Arabis blepharophylla H. § A.) could occur on or around
such rock outcrops. The larkspur in particular could be present with-
out above-ground parts' being visible in September. This is a particu-
larly sensitive plant since the only presently confirmed existing
population consists of perhaps a few hundred individuals at Larkspur
Rock described above, where it occurs with the Coast rock-cress.
Earlier reports of the former species or of potential hybrids with
it hint that it could occur south of this area. Both it and the
Coast rock-cress could also be established well inland in this region
because of the Wind Gap.
An annotated list of all of the other species listed by the CNPS
as rare or endangered and from Highway 101 to the coast in Sonoma and
northern Marin counties will be found in Appendix D.
*Also possible here is agrostis clivicola Crampton var. punta-
regesensis Crampton.
c) Impact--Instances of Sensitive Habitats*
e Rocky Outcrops
Several of these occur within or very near the easement as for
example in the de San Antonio Compadres parcel and further inland on
the Raven property. Other sites very likely exist along the route
but it was judged that examination of them at this time would prove
entirely inconclusive.
e Freshwater Marshy or Vernally Wet Areas
These vary from true vernal pools, two of which were observed
near the edge of the bluff at the de San Antonio Compadres, to low
overflow or flooding areas of San Antonio Creek, Stemple Creek or
their tributaries.
These latter places are all heavily grazed now and appear to
have been for a considerable period such that the proposed construction
would seem to pose little, if any, additional impact threat. The
vernal pools and their attendant relatively lush marshy areas could,
however, sustain a significant impact if care were not taken to
minimize the disruption during construction and removal of the Running
Fence. In addition to these, a spring-seep area was examined part
way down the final slope into the ocean at the de San Antonio Gompadres:
This and similar hillside seeps elsewhere along the route should be
considered as sensitive and direct contact avoided when at all possible.
d) Mitigation--Recommendations for Mitigation of Impact on
Plant Life
e Introduction
Mitigation suggestions pertaining to the floristic elements must
be prefaced by the strong recommendation for a subsequent field
survey to be carried out in the spring of 1976. The importance of
this to any sensitive and responsible approach to the potential
negative environmental impact on rare plants cannot be overstated.
A major proportion of the flora, including virtually all of the
species classified as ''Rare or Endangered" by the California Native
Plant Society in their Special Publication No. 1 (1974), is for all
intents and purposes, unrecognizeable during the dormant season.
*In the interest of conciseness, specific potential impacts are
treated in the following subsection on mitigation 99
100
e Specific recommendations relating to the above-identified
"Sensitive Areas"
Coastal Bluff - Since the placing of anchors and posts on the
last slope and vicinity entering the sea will necessarily require
hand tools or unicycles only, it is not expected that a serious
impact will occur so long as attention is paid to minimizing the
physical disruption of the soil surface. The seep area should be
avoided, even by extensive foot traffic. At the top of this bluff
there is a pair of vernal (springtime wet only) pools and surround-
ing lush somewhat marshy areas. If at all possible, these areas
should be detoured around and vehicular traffic over them prevented.
If passage across a lush area is necessary in order that a functional
line be maintained for a low-impact entry into the ocean, this should
be approached from the two sides rather than driven across by the
various vehicles distributing materials, driving anchors, coring
post-holes, etc.
Freshwater Marshy or Wet Areas Away from the Coast - These
areas should not provide special problems for the construction or
removal process except aS one or more should prove to contain any of
the rare or endangered species which could conceivably turn up in
the spring survey recommended above. As a general rule, however,
hillside seepage areas should be avoided or treated as suggested
above under Coastal Bluff. In most instances, these seeps will be so
small that this will prove no problem in compliance.
Rocky Outcrops - Here again, avoidance would be preferable, but
where a close approach needs to be made, this should preferentially
be made on or along the south sides of the outcrops in each case.
It is the north-facing slopes of these microhabitats which support
Arabis blepharophylla H. §& A. and Delphinium luteum Heller.
3) | ANIMAL LIFE
a) Introduction--Setting and Potential Impact
On the basis of recent visits to the easement of the Running
Fence and to areas adjacent to the Fence; upon studies of the literature;
and upon personal knowledge of Sonoma and Marin ‘counties, certain
general statements may be made.
Most of the area to be traversed by the proposed Running Fence
has been heavily grazed and much disturbed by man and his agriculture
for nearly a century. Comments by local ranchers, hunters, and others
lead us to believe that this area will continue to be much disturbed.
As to the animal populations now present that might be affected
by the Running Fence:
® The invertebrates will be little influenced except as they
are crushed by the impact of the trucks and feet of the workmen.
The flying insects, such as the abundant grasshoppers, will only be
briefly diverted.
e Of the amphibians, the tree frog (Hyla regilla) is probably
the only one likely to be disturbed during the construction and view-
ing periods. Other present in the general vicinity will probably not
be disturbed at all. See Appendix E for a list of amphibians.
@ Very few reptiles were seen during our visits and no rare
or endangered forms occur in that area. See Appendix F.
® Many birds are present in the area; in fact, some 68 species
were seen in our short visits, yet only one endangered species, the
Brown Pelican, occurs regularly in this area. The Peregrine Falcon
(Falco peregrinus anatuns) occurs occasionally at Bodega Harbor to the
north and at Bolinas Lagoon to the south and probably occasionally
crosses this area. The California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus) occurs along the coast but our recommendations for
modification of the Fence will probably protect these as well as other
species and reduce the number of casualties to one as low as, or lower
than, those created by telephone wires, power lines, and the highways.
Appendix G lists those species observed by us in September 1975 and
those likely to occur during the period of the Fence construction and
viewing.
e Most mammals are nocturnal and so our determinations are
based largely on previous experience, tracks, scat, and literature.
Mice, especially the California Vole (Microtus californicus) are
abundant. (Marsh Hawks and White-tailed kites were observed hunting
over the grasslands regularly). Indications are that the Gray Fox
(urocyon cineroargenteus), Badger (Taxidea taxus), Black-tailed Deer
(Dama hemionus), and Jackrabbits (epus californicus) are abundant.
In some areas, Brush Rabbits (Sylvilagus bachmani), Bobcats (Lynx
rufus), Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and Woodrats (Neotoma
fuscipes) are common. Ranchers state that the Norway Rat (Rattus
norvegicus) 1S a pest in some areas. A list of mammals is presented
in Appendix H.
With the possible exception of the Brown Pelican, no rare or
endangered animal species are present in this region. It is estimated
that the construction of the Fence, if modified as suggested, will
not particularly influence the animal population.
101
102
b) Impact--Specific Sensitive Areas
The following areas are considered ''sensitive'' because of the
possibility that the Fence and/or the supporting cables and poles
will hinder the passage of wild animal life. It is assumed that the
landowners will ask for sufficient passageway for sheep, horses, or
cattle where such is needed.
® The ridge and ravines above the reservoir on the Button
Property in the middle of Section 17 of the Fence route. This area
constitutes a natural passageway of deer and the Fence could restrict
their natural movements to water and cover.
e The crossing by the Fence of the branch of Stemple Creek
between the Tresch and Button properties at the junction of Sections
16 and 17 of the Fence route. Same problem as above.
® The crossing of the Petaluma-Valley Ford Road between the
Kirkland and Lepori properties--the junction between Sections 10
and 11 of the Fence route.
e The crossing of Americano Creek between the Titus and
Albini properties, in Section 7 of the Fence route. A possible
cripple-creating hazard.
e The Ridge-crossing Fence between the Estero Americano and
the Estero de San Antonio. A possible barrier to migrating birds
crossing between the two estuaries. One such area is at the end of
county-maintained Estero Road--at a junction of two farm roads and
a rather deep ravine. Fast migrating birds might well strike the
cables and/or panels here (de San Antonio Compadre--Pellascio line).
e A similar situation could develop at a ravine just east of
the Coastal Zone on the de San Antonio Compadre property.
fo) Mitigation--Recommendations to Minimize the Effects of the
Running Fence on Animal Life
8 It is recommended that at least one opening of at least
ten feet in width ad three feet high be left in the Fence on the ridge
above the reservoir on the Button property. This will be unnecessary
if the final line of the Fence crosses the ravines at the top in
such a way as to leave gaps three feet high there. The opening to
be left for the farm road will also aid the movements of deer and
other vertebrates to the west of the reservoir.
_@ It is recommended that the Fence follow what appears to
be its present plan to have the bottom of the Fence well over six feet
above the branch of Stemple Creek on the west side of the Button property.
In any case, the bottom cable here should be at least three feet
above the creek bed.
e At the crossing of the Petaluma-Valley Ford Road between
Kirkland and Lepori properties, the Fence will probably not cause
much of an obstruction to animal life since there will be a gap for
Carroll Road as well as one over the main highway. However, space
(3-5 feet) should be allowed on the south side (Lepori Property)
between the restarting of the Fence and the dense vegetation against
the farm fence to the west. If September, 1976 should be a rainy
month, there will be a great deal of avian activity about the base of
the Fence.
e Where the Fence is planned to cross Americano Creek (between
the Titus and Albini properties), it is recommended that no panel or
lower cable be placed across the creek. While this should leave a
space at least as broad as the bank-to-bank free up to about 15 feet,
an even better solution would be to have no cables crossing the creek.
This area is used frequently for birds flying up and down the creek.
In fact, in September of this year Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets,
Mallards, Snipe, and Northern Phalarope were seen flying along the
creek at the Fence crossing site.
e On the ridge between Estero Americano and Estero de San
Antonio, it is recommended that gaps be left as follows:
a. At the end of Estero Road where the Fence will cross
the ravine in de San Antonio Compadre (just beyond the
Pellascio line), it is recommended that a gap approxi-
mately 10 feet wide and 18 feet high be left at the
middle of this deep ravine. This is desirable, even
though there are openings at nearby roads on the banks
above. Fast-flying, migrating birds might go over if
the Fence is noted in time, but foggy nights or days
might obscure the white panel.
b. It is recommended that a full panel be omitted at the
ravine at the west end of the de San Antonio property
at approximately the beginning of the Coastal Commission
Zone. Here, as in other places where the upper cable
remains in place without a lower panel, white cloth or
other visible strips 18-36 inches long should be hung
at intervals of 5-10 feet to divert fast flying birds,
single or in flocks.
8 Where the Running Fence goes down the bluff and into Bodega
Bay, the cables should have highly visible strips hung from them
immediately and these should be in place at all times except when the
panels are displayed. The rather constant breeze moving the strips
should keep birds from striking. 103
104
& The lower cable should be at least three feet off the
ground at some place on this slope to allow deer and sheep to pass.
4) PLANT and ANIMAL LIFE--CONCLUSIONS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Erosional Problems
Aside from the special sensitive areas mentioned previously
in this subsection (Terrestrial Biology), we feel strongly that the
greatest potential impact of the construction, display, and removal
of Running Fence is that of rut formation by wheeled or tracked
vehicles. It has been estimated that a minimum of seven separate
vehicular passes will be required to distribute materials, set anchors,
core postholes, erect poles and cables, set the panels, drop the
panels, dismantle the rigging, remove the materials, and set the
anchor cable stubs the required 18 inches below grade. This seems
to us to be a very conservative (low) estimate of the number of
transits which will be required. It may, in fact, be several times
this number in some areas. Even this should not cause permanent
scars so long as great care is taken not to traverse any sloped area
which has not dried sufficiently to allow virtually no evidence of
tire tracks other than that of crushed vegetation. This is especially
important in the case of the steeper slopes where even slight depressions
can produce channelization and inevitable erosion, with potentially
ruinous results.
Mitigations would involve the reduction, to a minimum, of the
number of vehicular transits over any and all segments of the route
and the use of all already established lateral access roads except
where these might pose an even greater threat of erosion.
Seasonal Problems
Extreme care should be taken to check each area to verify that
the ground is sufficiently dry to support vehicles before starting
construction in that area. It is recommended that an independent
observer witness the early construction phases to assure compliance
with this very important recommendation.
The panels should not be spread for the display period until the
end of the Coastal Deer Season since even though there will be gaps
in sensitive areas, unsportsmanlike hunters would be likely to use
the Fence barrier to channel deer past posted shooters. Aside from
other considerations, this could well produce a very dangerous situation
in which hunters or other people are vulnerable to rifle bullets passing
through the opaque but not bullet-proof screen.
Fire
The problem of an increased fire hazard in the region* due to
the erection, display, and dismantling operations is of significant
importance, both in terms of floral and faunal damage and of poten-
tial damage to real property. This is particularly true because of
the fact that timing of the project places these activities in the
driest time of the year. (In addition, it should be pointed out that,
during the display period, Running Fence will function as a barrier
to free movement by animals who, should a fire threaten them, could
be caught against this "wall".)
Descriptions of the fabric have included indications that it is
fire-resistant. However, it is likely that, should sufficient heat
be applied, the material could mett and burn on the ground where dry
vegetation would be ignited. Vandalism should not be ruled out in
these considerations.
Fires on grazing land produce impacts that are essentially no
worse than those caused by grazing itself. Also, there is no reason
to believe that local fires will threaten rare or endangered botanical
species.
As precautions, it is recommended that no smoking be allowed
except at coffee or lunch breaks, i.e., not while the crews are moving
through the fields along the route. It is expected that vehicles will
conform to Division of Forestry specifications regarding spark and
fire suppression and that each will carry extinguishers, shovels, and
other fire-fighting equipment appropriate. In addition, it is under-
stood that radio contact will be maintained with local fire fighting
agencies.
Because of the vandalism and public smoking problems, it is
recommended that monitors on duty during the display period be provided
with access both to radio contact with fire fighting agencies as well
as some fire fighting equipment.
*Frequency of fire in the unincorporated areas of Sonoma
County is documented in the Community Services Section. Most of
these fires are man-caused grass fires. In general, the area is not
subject to naturally produced fires, because of the local climate
(moisture content). tas
106
5) | PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE--SUMMARY COMMENTS
® We have not considered the value of Running Fence aS an
art form nor as a construction project, but simply as an influence on
native plants and native animals inhabiting the easement and the
adjacent areas, including those animals likely to try to move through
the easement during the period from April 1976 through September 1976.
® Because of the ephemeral nature of the Fence, and considering
the safeguards suggested in the body of this report, it appears to us
that, aside from possible erosion damage, the biological effects of
Running Fence will be only temporary.
e Since construction, viewing, and removal will take place
over a period of several months from Spring to Fall, it is recommended
that periodic visits to the area be made by biologists. Such persons
should be responsible for checking the effectiveness of the recommended
mitigations and for recognition of potential presence of rare and
endangered plants not visible in September. In addition, since minor
re-routing may be demanded by soil conditions or construction problems,
consultation with the biologists could be essential.
6 Because of the nature of the plant and animal life, it is
recommended that construction be begun last and the Fence be removed
earliest in the area between Valley Ford and the coast.
e Potential impact of the viewing public should not be under-
estimated and some means of controlling or preventing access, especially
to sensitive areas, should be provided. It is recommended that strong
consideration be given to the closing of Estero Road at the intersection
with Franklin School Road since there is no adequate parking or turn-
around space beyond this point.
6) | PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE--COMMENTS ON SOME OF THE OBJECTIONS
RAISE TO EARLIER REPORTS
® Fire Danger--It is our understanding that the synthetic
fabric has low flammability and in fact "melts away from heat''. It
is also understood that each vehicle is to be brought into conformity
with California Division of Forestry specifications for fire prevention
and that in addition, each will carry firefighting equipment and
maintain radio contact, either direct or indirect, with local fire
control agencies (see Subsection 4 above).
e Used fabric and equipment--According to the applicant,
agreements have been reached whereby all materials will be given to
the owners of the properties traversed, the Fence will be removed as
soon as possible after its two-week display period, and the materials
will be dismantled and removed to mutually-agreed-upon locations by
the erection crews.
e Wind action--Our understanding of the Fence design is that
adequate tests have been performed to assure safe operation even in
the event of strong winds. Features of the design which specifically
bear on this problem are: anchors to be tension-tested to 14,000
pounds at time of setting; wire clips designed such that the top and
sides of each panel will separate from upper cable and poles, respectively,
before any separation with the bottom cable, thus allowing the panel
to lay out and spill the wind but not be blown away.
e Cliff erosion--Since spectators cannot, according to the
present plan, approach the coastal end of the Fence, cliff or bluff
erosion will be affected only by construction and dismantling operations.
Specific recommendations have been made to minimize this, including
use of hand transportable tools on these and other steep and fragile
slopes.
e General erosional effects along the route--It is recognized
that much of the easement and adjacent farmlands have been overgrazed
and greatly modified over a considerable period in the past and it
is unlikely that these conditions will change in the near future.
Specific recommendations in mitigation of the effects of the proposed
Running Fence construction and removal have been made elsewhere in
this subsection (Terrestrial Biology).
e Openings for wildlife--This subsection contains many recom-
mendations which, if followed, it is expected will allow sufficient
movement of larger wild animals to prevent serious impact on them.
See Figure 8 and Section 3 c of this subsection (Terrestrial Biology).
107
108
Ze SOILS/ GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY
Setting
a) Topography.
The Running Fence project site traverses a topographic low along
the westernmost ridge of the Coast Range. Along most of its length,
this first line of hills along the coast is on the order of 1,000 to
2,000 feet above sea level. The gap between Bodega Bay and Cotati
Valley, however, is generally less than 500 feet in elevation over
its 12 mile length and 8 mile width. The well developed drainage in
this area hasdissected the landscape into rolling hills and broad
valleys with 200 to 400 feet of relief. Slopes are generally gentle, but
often exceed 25 percent; at the coastal bluff, generally slopes can
reach 100 percent (see Figure 9).
b) Bedrock.
The oldest rocks in the area are of the Jurassic-to-Cretaceous-
age Franciscan Formation. In this area these rocks consist of
melange, an incoherent mass of crushed and sheared rock material
containing small-to-huge blocks of coherent rock. Overlying these
rocks on an old and irregular erosion surface are Pliocene -aged
marine sediments known as the Merced Formation. These materials were
deposited over the Franciscan rocks perhaps 4 million years ago, when
this area subsided below sea level. Sand, silt and clay deposited in
the old Merced embayment are today a nearly horizontal layer, up to
500 feet thick, of poorly cemented clayey sandstone and sandy mud-
stone (Travis, 1949; Rice and Strand, 1971; and Blake, et al., 1971).*
Near the east end of the proposed Fence alignment, Segment 22
passes over the Petaluma Formation. This sedimentary claystone, silt-
stone, and sandstone also contains debris from the Franciscan Formation
and the Sonoma Volcanics. Its age is approximately contemporaneous
with the Pliocene Merced Formation, but the relationship is somewhat
uncertain as their contact is at the Tolay Fault. Overlying the
Petaluma Formation and forming the cap rock of Meacham Hill (Segment 23)
are ee basalt lava flows of the Sonoma Volcanics (Fox, et al.,
1973).
c) Geomorphology.
As the area was again uplifted, the meandering channels of
Stemple and Americano Creeks were initiated on the "mudflats" of the
Merced bay bottom as it emerged above sea level. Continuing uplift
was accompanied by down-cutting of the drainages, deeply incising them
through the entire thickness of Merced sediment and into the underlying
Franciscan melange. The last great ice age, 10 to 25 thousand years
ago, lowered sea level by about 300 feet, allowing further down-cutting
*See Figure 10.
Game Man mee ) ae
»@ a : : ; : tr ‘
of) be wee (ig oa
eke sila a me
a 1 Nel
a i mer y Gu - Aa ash
AE iets is gl.
» bre a
onl iwi!
} <2
ey
110
NN OS
AY SS
WRIA
_ SEE FIGURE 3 FOR ALTE
\V% ROUTE LOCATION
. a
YQ. SBP |
De
ZEN
NG
Ss
NFS OV SOS
wees Running Fence
Slopes
0 2000”
bl 50% or greater
Leneenl FIGURE 9 SLOPES
REFER TO FIGURE 3
FOR BASIC LEGEND
Prepared by C. R. Davis, ESA
\\ ABR NSA
ee ct
EE
—
a % —
i ' eg Saw
wh wee?
US (0)
LEWES !
111
$4
‘.
,
uw
a
” A
*
’
\
i
oe
fhe
: . -_-
a
-*
by
‘
'
A
7 é
*
a
Ty
aa
x
: mS
s vy }'
. i
Geology
FIGURE 10 Qls_ Landslide area
Alluvium--sand, silt, cla
Qal and gravel
+ EA tm BY ais Yh (>
YEN SAGE A KOMI
ah
4 Tm} i
W\WSSZr' ms
Tsa Sonoma Volcanics--andesitic ;
to basaltic lava flows :
Petaluma Formation--claystone;
Tp siltstone, and pebble conglo-
Wye;
merate
Wi Sa
eo, Say 7
Qls. | Na Le
>
ceed
Cee io
MeN XQ @al_
AQ Ss
KS
: i : | ww a!
Oe I @
\) ~ LN"
Airs Yi Mia \
NCAA tm le
4 Ae ‘ ae 4 te
Sen v wk
© NTENTATIVE LOCATIONS
i= SUBJECT TO LAND OWNER |
% 57 AND/OR COUNTY APPROVAL ©
114
geology con't.
Merced(?) Formation--massive
fine-grained sandstone and
siltstone
Wi, Franciscan Assemblage--sheared
Kits/ shale and sandstone with chert
i and greenstone
fo~—~ Formation Contact
Tm
fo. 7 eS
EI OS RK =
= AW fi:
7,
To
AY
AS
AWN
NI
ah
*S
SQ) " yy
= YS i:
+S
as
A Ne. A \
i Mi ‘ip
nt A
AN
Qal WARN
Compiled by C. R. Davis, ESA, from Travis
Fox, et al., 1973; Miller, et al.
photo interpretation and field re
WO
UN
ee
\
! oe mA
Sra | L
roe
ean
PENS ae
Geology con't.
memes FU] t--dashed where approximate,
mu ewe em @ © dotted where concealed
Soil Constraints
Potentially weak soil
2] Shallow soil underlain by
DS2:4 hard rock
ips
AY eres
MIs
\\ \ WAY \Y
wr
N
N
WN)
yo
, 1949; Blake, et al., 1971;
» 1972; Armstrong, 1974; with aerial
connaissance.
<>
0 2000'
ree FIGURE 10 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
REFER TO FIGURE 3
FOR BASIC LEGEND
Qo =m
SP de “1
|X i
— SN ONL
1, er
[re ttt)
J Speen
7
TUE? eater
a4 & & Wee as
——
Brees,
ion Monee tigass rs
a a nla ahi sigh e.oun! TA" 85
= Roe Any tel RS
‘=
arrh
/
‘tect (thassyont ; 7
Se eee .
‘ae Kos Vodr
5 sanlevoer ites 8
atiotesite >)
ore helene gia
6 a aor ede mie’
wi foner ny ba®. ae
ee
é wrieGg y
* a
Fnl nd6a
hurt
ay
of these streams. Return of sea level to its present state flooded
the channels, creating the esteros we see today.
Geomorphic processes active in the area today include sheet
erosion, gullying, and landsliding.* These processes are most preva-
lent on the weak, poorly consolidated and poorly drained Merced
sediments. Overgrazing and cultivation during the last century has
seriously accelerated these processes, as is evidenced by old fence
lines on the Merced Formation which are now on mounds six inches to
a foot above the surrounding ground. Most drainage-ways are severely
gullied due to accelerated runoff, and most hillsides on the Merced
Formation exhibit sheet erosion and slumping. The hillsides appear
to be at or near the greatest angle of repose for these poorly consoli-
dated sediments, which are commonly seen to be failing.
Landsliding is prevalent at the coastal bluff where the sea is
wearing it away at the base. Undercutting in the weak Franciscan
melange leads to slumping on the upper slopes. The Fence route traverses
a reasonably stable old slide on this bluff. Recent failure is not
apparent, and the toe of the slide mass has not been seriously under-
cut, suggesting that it may be inactive at this time.
d) Surficial Deposits.
Erosion on the upper slopes has provided sediment to fill the
valley bottoms. The alluvium reflects the nature of the parent
material and is composed of sand, silt, and clay.
e) soils ss *
The soils along the proposed Fenceroute vary according to
underlying substrata, topography, and hydrologic conditions. In
general, upland soils developed on the Merced and Franciscan Forma-
tions west of Segment 18 are of the Steinbeck series.
The Steinbeck soils are medium-textured, moderately-well-drained
loams with clay loam subsoils. They occur on slopes from 2 to 50
percent and vary in depth from 20 to 60 inches, depending on position,
slope, and erosion history. Steeper slopes and hill tops have experi-
enced more erosion, so that soil depth is shallow. Permeabilities
are moderate, and runoff is medium to rapid, creating a moderate to
high erosion hazard. As an indication of engineering properties,
these soils are described as having slightly hard, friable and slightly
plastic surface soils with slightly hard to hard friable and nonplastic
*See Figure 10-
**This section has been developed from the Sonoma County Soil
Survey and the Marin County Soil Report, U.S. Department. of ’
Agriculture, 1972 and 1967 respectively (Miller et al., 1972; U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, 1967). See also Armstrong, 1974, and Figure 10. W7
118
subsoils. These soils have agricultural capability classifications
of from III to VI*, depending on depth of top soil and the extent of
erosion. Steinbeck soils occupy approximately 75 percent of the
proposed Fence route.
Proceeding to the east from Segment 16 into the headwater areas
of Americano and Stemple Creeks, the soils on the hills become some-
what more sandy. Sebastopol series soils formed on the Merced and
Franciscan Formations in this area are sandy loams. Occurring on
slopes from 2 to 30 percent, the sandy loam surface soil is thin,
with a deep sandy clay loam subsoil to a depth of 43 inches. This
subsoil is hard, firm, and plastic when wet. The soils being well-
drained, runoff is slow to rapid (depending on slope), and erosion
hazard is slight to high. These soils are again classified as III
to VIE.
The soils in Segment 22 are developed on the Petaluma Formation
and are quite sandy. These Cotati series soils on 2 to 5 percent
slopes have moderately deep fine sandy loam surface soil underlain
at a depth of about 22 inches by clay subsoil which is very hard,
very firm, and very plastic when wet. These soils being only moder-
ately well-drained, with slow permeability in the subsoil, runoff
is medium to rapid with moderate to high erosion hazard. Agricultural
capability classification is III and IV.
The easternmost end of the proposed route is on Toomes rocky
loam. This soil is developed on and underlain at a depth of 5S to
20 inches by shattered and weathered andesitic basalt lava flows which
form Meacham Hill. Permeability is moderate with slow to medium run-
off and slight to moderate erosion hazard. This is very poor soil,
having an agricultural capability classification of VII (marginal
rangeland).
One other soil type is found in the valley bottoms along Ameri-
cano and Stemple Creeks. The proposed route approaches or crosses
each of these drainages twice. Blucher series soils have formed in
these areas from stream-deposited fine sand, silt, and clay. Slopes
are from 0 to 5 percent. Surface soils are fine sandy loam and
clay loam to a depth of about 34 inches, underlain by silty clay loam
subsoil which is very hard and firm but moist and plastic for much of
the year. Permeability is slow, but gentle slopes produce slow runoff
and a slight erosion hazard. This is prime agricultural soil, with a
classification of II.
*III = moderately good cropland
IV = good pasture land
V and VI = good rangeland
Current agricultural use of the soils along the proposed Fence
route is grazing and dry grain production, although Sebastopol series
soils are suitable also for orchards and vineyards, and Blucher series
soils are suitable for orchard and row crops.
f) Faults and Seismicity.
The proposed project would span most of the block between two
major active fault zones in the San Francisco Bay Region* The San
Andreas Fault Zone, the contact of the drifting North American Conti-
nental plate with the Pacific oceanic plate, passes about ¥% mile
offshore of the proposed coastal site. This section of the San
Andreas moved some 20 feet in the great earthquake of 1906. At the
eastern end of the proposed route in Segment 21, the route would
cross the Tolay Fault, a potentially active branch of the Hayward
Fault system. The route would cross three additional inactive faults.
The Americano Fault crosses Segment 14, the Bloomfield Fault crosses
Segment 17 twice where fault and route are roughly parallel for % mile,
and again in Segment 18, and the Dunham Fault crosses the route at
Segment 20. These faults are all aligned with the San Andreas and
trend northwest (Jennings, 1973; Fox, et al., 1973; Travis, 1949).
Major faults in the region (Jennings, 1973) which could cause
potentially damaging levels of ground-shaking in the project area
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the Healdsburg-Rogers
Creek and San Andreas Faults. The Healdsburg-Rogers Creek Fault lies
approximately 4% miles to the east of the easternend of the Fence
route, while the San Andreas Fault, as noted, lies about ¥% mile to
the west of the western end of the land portion of the Fence route.
The project area lies within a portion of the San Francisco Bay
Region that has experienced moderate seismic activity. In the past
160 years, the area has been shaken 11 to 15 times with sufficient -
force to potentially produce damage ranging from cracked plaster and
broken windows to partial collapse of unreinforced masonry structures
(California Division of Mines and Geology, 1972).
In addition, the 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault shook
this area hard enough to destroy or severely damage most masonry
structures and even some well-constructed wooden ones.
g) Natural Resource Base.
There are two basic types of physical natural resources present
in any given area. The first is the land itself, while the second is
the material present beneath the land's surface.
The land within the project area can be considered moderately
to highly valuable from an agricultural standpoint. U.S. Soil Con-
servation Service Land Capability Classifications range from Class II }}9
*See Figure 10.
120
(prime) to Class VII (suitable for range) with most of the land being
Class III to VI [suitable for dry grain and pasture (range) ].
No known economically significant subsurface materials are known
to exist in the project area, although gold, mercury, quartz, and rock
have been recovered from this area in the past (Travis, 1949;
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1949).
Impacts
The geologic "impacts" of a project can be divided into two
categories: impacts and hazards. Impacts are those changes which the
proposed project may induce in the geologic conditions of the site.
Hazards are those problems which the geology of the site may pose for
the proposed project.
a) Topography.
The proposed project would involve no topographic modification,
but the topography could affect implementation of the project. Slopes
greater than 50 percent would preclude the direct use of vehicles for
installation and would require hand work or a modified technique.
Slopes greater than 50 percent are shown on Figure 9.
The slope interval between 25 percent and 50 percent brackets
the ''angle of repose'' for loose soils; that is, the angle above which
loose soils tend to slide.* Thus, this interval defines the portion
of the Fence route in which care must be taken during construction
to prevent further erosion (induced by the project).
b) Bedrock.
This project would have no impact on bedrock, but Meacham Hill is
capped by shallow hard rock which could hinder the project. See the
subsection on "Soils, following, for a discussion of this hazard and
its mitigation.
c) Geomorphology.
The only place along the proposed route where the project could
potentially significantly affect land-shaping processes is at the
coastal bluff. The route would pass down a major landslide to
reach the ocean. It is conceivable that the installation could leave
depressions in the soil surface which would serve to trap water and
allow it to percolate. An increase in the water content of the slide
mass could hasten its movement downslope into the sea. The remainder
of the route has been so located that no other landslides would be
Sane = ee Gasene - . - .
Strictly speaking, this concept applies only to loose, "cohesion-
less" soils. The local soils are somewhat cohesive, because of their
clay content.
crossed. Field reconnaissance of the route in Segment 11 confirmed
that the staked route is indeed upslope of the landslides on this
north face. The corrected alignment on the base map reflects this
field verification. Erosion processes are discussed separately under
"Water Resources", following.
d) Soils.
The potential impacts on the soils of the area which could result
from implementation of the proposed project would be associated first
with vehicle traffic over the grass lands and second with the direct
disturbance of the soil by the actual installation. The first effect
from vehicular traffic could compact the soil or actually cause ruts
from heavy vehicle tires. This impact would be most severe when the
ground is moist or wet. The second effect could mix the soil colum,
reducing surface soil fertility while exposing the soil to other
impacts. This could result from posthole digging (punching), place-
ment or removal of anchors, or failure of the ground, allowing pull-
ing out of anchors, and tipping over of posts.
Soil properties or characteristics could impose hazards to the
proposed project. Digging of post holes and placement of anchors to
a depth of 36 inches could be hindered by hardpan or shallow bedrock,
and weak soil conditions at that depth could provide insufficient
strength to support the structure. As noted above, the low-lying
soils adjacent to the principal creeks are clayey and wet much of the
year. These soils may have poor strength and may not provide good
support for the proposed structure. On the other hand, Meacham Hill
is covered by only 5 to 20 inches of soil underlain by hard igneous
rock; this could pose special problems for the placement of posts
and anchors. (See Figure 10).
e) Faults and Seismic Hazards.
The project would cross the potentially active Tolay Fault, but
could in no way affect the activity of this fault. While this is a
seismically active region and a major or great earthquake is antici-
pated, the probability of such an event's occurring during the life of
this project is extremely low. If such an event were to occur, the
structure would probably not be seriously damaged. Perhaps some cables
would part or some anchors might be pulled out of the ground, but the
life risk associated with failure would be negligible.
f) The Natural Resource Base.
As there are no known economic mineral deposits along the route,
and since an insignificant amount of soil would be disturbed, there
is only one potential resource impact. The project would use steel
for cables, poles and anchors, and plastic fabric for the curtain.*
Petroleum would be consumed in construction and viewing. See Energy 12]
Section, above.
*Mostly surplus material, already available.
122
Mitigation
a) Topography.
Construction plan methodology specifies that vehicles shall not
be driven on slopes in excess of 50 percent. Installation and re-
moval will be accomplished in these areas either by hand or by using
a second vehicle to winch the construction vehicle into position
without putting power to the wheels. This will prevent any wheel
spinning which could have erosional consequences. Even in handwork
involving the powered moto-mule, the equipment would be winched up
and down steep slopes to prevent these impacts. In the 25 to 50 per-
cent slope interval, decisions about construction methods should be
made by an engineer on-site at the time of construction.
b) Geomorphology.
There should be no impact on the coastal landslide's stability
from the project since under actual project plans, no depressions
will be left to act as water traps. Backfilling and revegetation
measures. included in the project will leave the surface essentially
undisturbed. Vehicles will not be driven in this area and therefore
no disturbance will result from this cause.
Since rates of infiltration or runoff will not be affected,
slide-prone areas downslope of the route will experience no change
in stability.
C) sons.
Mitigation which has been developed and included as part of the
project plan willminimize any of the soil impacts and hazards dis-
cussed above. The vehicles to be used would be equipped with 4-wheel
drive and wide, flotation-type tires to minimize soil pressures and
erosion from wheel spinning. To avoid damage to moist soils, early
work can begin on higher ground, which dries sooner.
The engineering design and methodology is so conceived as to
make soil disturbance insignificant. Special equipment developed
for this project will punch a minimum sized posthole for the main
oles, thus limiting the amount of disturbance. Anchors would be
riven directly into the ground, so that excavation and soil
disruption would not be necessary. Areas inaccessible to the truck-mounted
equipment would require manual installation, but the methodology
would be similar and would result in no more soil disturbance.
Further, plans for removal of the structure include filling and seeding
of the post holes; anchors would not be removed (which would require
considerable disturbance of the soil), but covered by backfilling.
Soil hazards to the project (with resulting impacts) have also
been considered in the design and methodology. Three types of anchors,
which will be suitable for rock, average, or soft soil conditions,
have been designed. In addition, the method of placement calls for
driving the anchor 10 inches below design depth and then "setting"
it by partial withdrawal. If the anchor moves up more than 10 inches
under a measured load, additional anchors (up to a total of four)
would be placed at each point to achieve the designed strength. Also,
the system has been designed for "controlled" failure (panel separation)
at points other than anchors and post holes; since anchor holding
power will be measured on installation, it is highly unlikely that
the structure will fail at these points and cause soil - disturbance
impacts/hazards.
d) -Natural Resources.
The materials to be used to construct the Fence will be given to
the landowners ,who will use it on their ranches or sell it as surplus
at the end of the project,and thus they will not be lost. Petroleum
will be consumed in implementation of the project.* Fuel will be
expended by persons travelling to view the project.*
ea aaa . . .
For estimates of consumption, see Energy Section above.
123
124
3. | WATER RESOURCES
Setting
a) Drainage.
The proposed project route would cross several drainages. The
area immediately adjacent to the coast drains directly to the sea.
The 1500 feet of the route that is closest to the coast is in the
15-acre area which drains over the landslide to be traversed to reach
the ocean. The next 10,000 feet would follow the drainage divide
between two unnamed minor drainages leading to the sea. From this
point to Segment 16, the route would be in the Americano drainage
basin, crossing that creek twice and running along the Stemple/
Americano drainage divide for 3000 feet in Segment 13. In Segment 16,
the route crosses into the Stemple Creek basin and follows the north
side of that drainage to its headwaters near Stony Point. Three
thousand feet of Segment 22 pass through the Laguna de Santa Rosa
basin (tributary to the Russian River). The route then enters the
Petaluma River drainage basin on Meacham Hill.
b) Runoff.
The bedrock and subsoils in this area are generally quite
impermeable, resulting in relatively rapid runoff in spite of the
gentle slopes. Overgrazing of the rangeland is nearly universal in
the area, contributing significantly to the rate of runoff. Numerous
small stock-watering impoundments have been created on the inter-
mittent streams throughout the area in order to capture some winter
runoff for summer use.
c) Erosion and Sedimentation.
Rapid runoff over the poorly vegetated hillsides of the area has
caused serious erosion in the form of gullying and rilling. The
sediment produced is carried downstream into impoundments or to the
Esteros. The natural process of filling these intertidal areas to
become marsh has been accelerated by the poor land management in the
watersheds.
d) Groundwater.
Although wells exist in this area, groundwater is not plentiful.
Webster (1972a) shows this area to be about half in zone A and half
in zone B,* indicating that water well yields would probably be no
worse than marginal to adequate for stock or single family domestic use.
*Category A: "Marginal to adequate for stock or Single family use,
0.5 to 5 gallons per minute."
Category B: "Adequate for stock or single family use, but inade-
quate to marginal for light industrial use, 5 to 50 gallons per minute. '
e) Water Quality.
The quality of the groundwater in the area has not received
extensive study; however, one data point at Salmon Creek, a similar
area nearby, indicates nitrate levels have been high enough to be
harmful to infants (Webster, 1972b). Surface water quality also is
not well characterized, but the large numbers of livestock kept in
the area certainly contribute considerable quantities of nutrients
to the runoff. Some stream channels which were still wet in late
summer were noted to be eutrophic (containing visible quantities of
algae), an indication of excessive nutrients.
Impacts
Since this project would traverse a number of watersheds, any
impacts on local water resources would not be concentrated in a
Single area. Any effects of the project as proposed, however, would
be negligible. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1975), after studying
the most sensitive portion of the route, the Coastal Zone,* concluded:
e Proposed Fence placement and removal procedures are
extremely safe and conservative, and far surpass the
average standard of care existing today in any fence
project.
e Placement of the Christo Fence will not cause surface soil
erosion in any manner.
8 There will be no erosion impact on the Estero de San
Antonio or on the adjacent sea cliffs and bluffs. *
e If public viewing is limited to existing roads, in
accordance with the Christo public access plan,*** there
is no risk of soil erosion due to public activity. A
few hundred accidental excursions would not alter this
conclusion.
These conclusions may be extended with high confidence to the
rest of the route, particularly when viewed in thecontext of the
normal farm-vehicle activities on the ranches along the route. Water
quality could possibly be adversely affected by the wastes from the
potentially large numbers of people visiting the area to view the
project.
*Refersto the original route, entering the ocean at the mouth of
Estero de San Antonio, generally a more sensitive location than the
currently proposed point of entry. 125
**The "Christo public access plan" no longer applies, as it refers
to a concept and a location that are no longer part of the project plan.
126
Mitigation
Elements of the project design and methodology will mitigate
potential impacts to the region's water resources:
a) Runoff.
Rates of runoff will not be affected by this activity because
the use of wide flotation-type tires and the planned construction
during the dry season will prevent compaction of the ground. For
the same reasons, impacts on vegetative cover which could otherwise
increase runoff also will not be significant.
b) Erosion and Sedimentation.
Since rates of runoff will not be increased by this activity,
erosion rates will also not be affected thereby. Disturbance of
the soil could expose it to erosion, but structure removal plans call
for backfilling the post holes and seeding of disturbed areas, with
placement of jute matting to stabilize the surface where necessary
(i.e., on slopes) until revegetation takes place. Thus, there will
be no increase in erosion rates as a result of this project.
c) Water Quality.
The potential impact on water quality from additional people in
the areawould be mitigated by the provision of portable chemical
toilets. This measure should be effective it they are provided in
sufficient numbers, placed at strategic locations, and receive the
required maintenance.
4... AIR QUALITY/METEOROLOGY
Climate
a) Setting.
The proposed route of the Running Fence pierces the strong
gradients of wind, temperature, rainfall, and cloud cover that pro-
duce the unique coastal climate of northern California. The break
in the coastal hills made by Americano and Stemple Creeks provides
a conduit through which cool marine air moves eastward to meet and
mingle with another air stream moving northward from San Pablo Bay.
During the trip eastward and northward, these air streams are sub-
jected to intense solar radiation which quickly modifies their marine
characteristics and produces the remarkably strong climatic gradients
of Sonoma County.
Wind motion carries air over and past the route of the Fence.
Along the coast, the prevailing summer wind blows from the northwest.
At the least-sheltered coastal locations, the average hourly wind speed
in May and June reaches 30 miles per hour between 6 PM and midnight.
By September, the maximum average hourly wind has decreased to about
20 miles per hour but the late afternoon and evening is still the
most blustery period (California Department of Water Resources,
1971). The eastern portion of the Fence route lies in a region that
experiences lighter southerly and southwesterly summer winds. In
contrast to the coastal zone, average daytime wind velocities here
(hourly averages are not available) are only between five and six
miles per hour and even these modest levels decrease slightly during
September and October (BAAPCD unpublished data).
Peak wind gust data are not available for any portion of the
Fence route. However, gust data are available for the San Francisco
International Airport site, which occupies a lowland exposure compar-
able to those of the Fence route with respect to the marine flow.
The airport data will supply a gross indication of the possible gust
environment of the central portion of the Fence route near Bloomfield,
which is about as far inland as the San Francisco Airport is from the
coast. During the 18-year period 1948-1965, the maximum gust for
each month occurred as follows:
Month Peak Gust* (mph) Month Peak Gust* (mph)
January 78 July 47
February 64 August 49
March 58 September 56
April 60 October 64
May 62 November 67
June 58 December 66
127
*Source: National Climatic Center, Asheville, North Carolina,
(Air Weather Service, undated).
128
In the same 18-year period, one-minute average wind speeds (in con-
trast to instantaneous peak gusts) greater than 31 miles per hour
were recorded during 0.1 percent of the September observations.
The route of the Fence traverses an area that is normally sub-
jected to a strong temperature gradient during the warmer months.
Average September afternoon temperatures along the immediate coast
are in the upper 60's while inland areas between Petaluma and Santa
Rosa experience September afternoon temperatures in the low 80's
(Miller, et al., 1972).
The Fence route also crosses a Significant rainfall gradient
that gives a mean annual rainfall of 39 inches to the coastal end
of the route and 22 inches to the eastern end (U.S. Geological
Survey, 1971). Detailed, long term rainfall data for Santa Rosa are
available which are representative of rainfall conditions along the
central portion of the Fence route. Annual rainfall contour maps
indicate that Santa Rosa and the center of the Fence route experience
the same amount of precipitation, with Cotati drier and Petaluma
more so. These data (see Table 3 ) indicate that 87 percent of the
annual precipitation falls during the six months from November
through April, thereby producing a well-defined dry season during
the remainder of the year. On the average, the three driest months
are July, August, and September. However, anomalously heavy rainfall
amounts have been recorded in all seasons; the data indicate that
the early and late portions of the dry season are susceptible to
invasions of weather that more properly belong to the wet season.
The record 9.47 inches that fell in October 1962 illustrate how
quickly the dry season can be displaced.
At the western end of the Fence route, where mean rainfall
amounts are considerably higher, the maximum daily and maximum
monthly values are also expected to be higher. Similarly, the maximum
daily and monthly values at the drier eastern end of the route are
expected to be lower. However, the mean number of days with precipi-
tation .10 inch or greater will not differ significantly from one end
of the route to the other (U.S. Geological Survey, 1971).
Fog and low cloudiness frequents the coastal portion of the
Fence route and occasionally penetrates areas to the east by follow-
ing the lowlands of the Estero Americano. July and August are the
foggiest months but no month is completely fog free.
b) Impact.
By pulling and tugging at the fabric, the wind environment of
the Running Fence will have an important influence on the structure's
appearance. The prevailing westerly and northwesterly winds will
push the fabric southeastward along that portion of the Fence that
lies west of the Highway 1/Petaluma-Valley Ford Road intersection.
TABLE 3
RAINFALL MEANS AND EXTREMES, SANTA ROSA, 1931-1973 (INCHES).
Average Maximum Maximum Mean Number of Days
Monthly Daily Monthly Rainfall 0.10" or More -
January 6.02 Sai 15.38 9
February Se15 4.20 l2e31 8
March 3.98 3.04 8.03 7
April 233 2.97 7.61 4
May 98 1.39 3.95 2
June eae 1.08 1.94 1
July .02 a20* ~20* < 1/2
August 06 Vas 1.68 < 1/2
September ney 2.82 3-16 < 1/2
October 1.54 2539 9.47 3
November 2.94 eed 13.23 5
December 5.64 4.33 17.89 8
Source: U.S. Weather Bureau, 1974.
*Note: In July 1974, 1.61 inches was recorded, nearly all of
which fell in a 24-hour period.
129
Between this point and the Pepper Road-Meacham Road intersection, the
alignment of the Fence will cause a fluttering or ruffling of the
fabric similar to that of a luffing sail. The remaining eastern
extremity of the rence lies, for the most part, approximately perpen-
dicular to the prevailing southerly wind flow. Along this section,
the fabric will most commonly be bowed to the north of the Fence line.
The maximum gust record for San Francisco International Airport* pre-
sented in the Climate Setting Section gives an indication of the extreme
winds to which the Fence may be subjected. The difficulties inherent in
applying these data to all portions of the Fence route are obvious. In
particular, areas immediately adjacent to the coast and on exposed ridge
tops can be expected to have significantly higher maximum gusts than those
observed at San Francisco International Airport, which is about 10 miles
inland from the coast. However, the general annual trend of weaker gusts
in summer and stronger gusts in winter illustrated by these data is expected
to be valid along the entire route. This trend information indicates that
the most wind-sensitive period of the project will occur during September,
when the probability of gusts of more than 50 mph is increasing (see
Appendix N for summary of wind tests conducted by applicant's engineers).
Work on the Fence will face the greatest probability of weather
(rain) interference during the initial construction (April) and the
removal (October) periods. Even though April is the transition month
between the wet and dry seasons, the historic record shows that very
heavy rains have fallen in this month (see Table 3 ). Copious rainfall
amounts at this time of the year can seriously aggravate runoff and
soils problems because they occur at the end of a 6-month period during
which more than 2 feet of rain is likely to have fallen.** The 43-year
record for 1931 through 1973 shows that a total monthly rainfall
greater than 3 inches occurs in about 1 out of 4 Aprils. October is
also a transition month; however, when unusually heavy October rains
occur, they fall upon soils desiccated by the summer drought. A
total monthly rainfall greater than 3 inches occurs in about 1 out of
5 Octobers and in about 1 out of 2 Novembers.
The reader is reminded that the above discussion and Table 3
are directly applicable only to the central portion of the Fence
where the average annual rainfall is approximately 30 inches. Con-
struction activities along the western segments will face a higher
probability of interference by rainfalls of greater intensity while
activities along the eastern segments will face a lower probability
of the intensities predicted for the central segments.
a i
a,from where the only local records are available.
This discussion applies to potential interferences and
impacts. The likely situation is discussed under Water Resources above.
c) Mitigation.
See Section mm Project Description-Technical Description, and
Appendix N for engineering testing of Fence panels. The system is
designed so that the panels will separate from the top cables and the
poles and, thus, lie on the ground if winds arise at high enough velocity
to otherwise tear the materials or pull out the poles. Note that testing
of Running Fence was done at full scale. One project, Christo's Valley
Curtain, did not conform to engineering expectations. However, the great
size of Valley Curtain (width: 1250-1368 feet, height: 185-365 feet,
precluded anything but scaled-model testing (Christo, 1973).
If rainfall in April 1976 is unusually high, construction work on wet
areas and the western end of the Fence route could be delayed to avoid damage
to soils and vegetation.
Air Quality
a) Setting.
The Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (BAAPCD) maintains
two air quality monitoring stations near the eastern portion of the
Fence route, one in Petaluma and the other in Santa Rosa. Oxidants
only are sampled at the Petaluma site, while the full range of air
pollutants (oxidants, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and suspended particulates) is sampled at Santa Rosa. A
combined summary of the 1973 and 1974 monitoring experience is pre-
sented in Table 4 for those contaminants that exceeded federal or
state air quality standards. Violations of the nitrogen dioxide and
sulfur dioxide standards did not occur during this period.
The oxidant violations at both stations occurred, as would be
expected, during the summer and early fall oxidant season when intense
sunlight and restricted ventilation combine to carry the photochemical
smog reaction to its annual peak. Comparison with other BAAPCD loca-
tions indicates that, while oxidants are a problem in the Santa Rosa-
Petaluma area, they are not present in the concentrations or frequencies
observed in much of the rest of the Bay Area. In contrast to oxidants,
the carbon monoxide violations occurred in the late fall and winter
period. High concentrations of this pollutant are promoted by the
weakening wind flows and nighttime radiation inversions common to
this time of year. The suspended particulate annual geometric mean
indicates that Santa Rosa is among the least dusty locations in the
entire Bay region.
The BAAPCD monitoring data discussed above are, of course,
relevant only for the eastern portion of the Fence route between
Petaluma and Santa Rosa. The less-developed and less-traveled
western portion, particularly the section within several miles of the
Coast, undoubtedly experiences less polluted air than does the Petaluma- )3,
Cotati valley. Violations of the ambient air quality standards along
this part of the route are probably rare occurrences.
"GL6L Pue pZ6Ll “dIdvWd :ad4NosS
(*potuad ay} Hbultunp papasoxe swareu seM--UOL| [LW 4ad
Squed GE--0) UO} Puepueys unoy-auo ayj) “UOL[ [LW wad Squed UL anj[eA abeuare
4Anou-jyubia ysayHLy ayy St ,wnwixew, ‘apLxOuOW UOqued 4O4 “UOLL [LW PaupuNny sad
Squed uL passaudxa anjea abeuade Ajunoy ysaybiy ay} st ,wnwixew,, ‘yUuepLXxO UOJ +:9330N
Ri ee =O €2 vl euin | e}ad
cv € 9°6 Sl Gil esoy e7URS
(4aqay “ng papaaoxz purpueys win Lx PW papaaaxj puepueys winw Lx ey UOL}e1S
/swesBoudtW) uray apLxouow uoque) ap LxouoW qUPPLXQ | ePUOLZEN quPpLxo
Lenuuy a3eNnd | PUOLZEN uoque) sheg 40 uaquny
-1q4eg papuadsns skeq $0 saquny
pL6L GNY €Z6L--JONITYAdXI JLVINIILYVd ASGN3dSNS ANV “J3CIXONOW NOSUWI *LNVGIXO
pb 31avl
132
b) Impact.
i. Construction Period.
During the construction period, the principal air quality
impact will be caused by fugitive dust emissions from soil disturbances
(pole and anchor placement) and off-road vehicle usage. Emission
factors for the placement of the poles and anchors are not available;
this lack prevents quantification of the impact of this activity,
which is expected to be small compared to that from off-road vehicle
usage in general. However, preliminary work on fugitive dust emissions
from unpaved roads is available and appears in Table 5 . Note that
the emission output is dependent upon the vehicle miles traveled and
the average vehicle speed. Note also the sharp increase in emissions
per vehicle mile at speeds above 25 miles per hour (PEDCo- Environmental
Specialists Inc.; 1973)’.
TABLE 5
DUST EMISSIONS FROM UNPAVED ROADS
Average Emissions
Vehicle (Pounds/
Speed (mph Vehicle Mile)
Ss 0.81
25 1.18
35 2.47
40 4.20
These emission factors describe the dust emissions from dry, unpaved
surfaces. If Fence construction begins in April, the hillsides will
most likely still be moist from the winter rains which may, indeed,
still be falling. Vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces at that time
would therefore produce much less dust than indicated in Table 5 .*
Vehicle disturbances during June, July, and August would realize the
*As noted under "Soils"; however, construction should not be
encouraged under such conditions. 133
134
full dust-producing penne” Construction activities performed in
September, such as the hanging of the fabric panels, will take place
after (during) the summer drought and during the period when the
probability of measureable rainfall is increasing. Dust production
will then be dependent upon the occurrence of the first rains of
the new wet season. In no event are area suspended-particulate
standards likely to be exceeded because of the project. Localized
dust generation will be similar to that produced by off-road farm
vehicles in normal use.
ji. Removal Period.*
Removal of the Fence will cause dust to be emitted from the
same sources that were described in the paragraphs above. Total
dust emission, however, may be lower during the removal period for
two reasons. First, the removal of the poles and the abandonment of
the anchors will cause less disturbance of the soil than did their
installation. Second, while the installation of the Fence will encom-
pass the heart of the dry season from April to September, the removal
will take place from mid-September through October, which is a period
of rapidly increasing rainfall probabilities.
1ii. Viewing Period.
The greatest air quality impact during the viewing period
will be caused by the exhaust emissions from the thousands of auto-
mobiles expected to visit the Fence route. The amounts of pollutants
emitted from this source are dependent upon the number of vehicles
and their average speed. For carbon monoxide, a primary pollutant
with an immediate environmental impact (when released in high enough
concentrations and quantities), the emission rate per mile traveled
rises as the average vehicle speed drops, reaching a maximum under
stop-and-go conditions. The environmental concentration of a given
pollutant (and therefore its jfmpact) is dependent upon additional
dilution-controlling climatic factors, such as wind speed and
atmospheric stability.
On the basis of the weekend visitor demand projections and the vehicle
distributions (Appendix K) and the calculation method recommended by
the Federal Highway Administration (1974), carbon monoxide concentrations
were estimated for the busiest afternoon hour at selected points along
the trafficway (see Table 6 ). These estimates include carbon monoxide
generated by combined Fence and non-Fence weekend traffic along these
roads but do not include carbon monoxide drifting in from distant traffic
sources. Conservative climatic parameters were assumed for the calculations.
Nevertheless, the values in Table 6 are far below the on-hour national
ambient air quality standard of 35 parts per million and well below
*Presented out of normal order for continuity of technical presentation.
the 8-hour standard of 9 parts per million. Therefore, given the
good dilution characteristics of September afternoons and the rela-
tively low ambient background levels of carbon monoxide--particularly
along the western portion of the Fence route--it is highly unlikely
that the Running Fence traffic will cause violations of the national
standards for carbon monoxide. For the locations specified in Table 6,
this is true even if there are intermittent traffic jams aiong area
roadways.
TABLE 6
PEAK HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
LOCATION (parts/million)
Highway 101 1.4
(100 feet from roadway )
Stony Point Road eel
(30 feet from roadway)
West Railroad Avenue <i]
(30 feet from roadway)
Pepper Road < ]
(30 feet from roadway)
Valley Ford Road/Highway 1 lees
(30 feet from roadway)
Unburned hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen are other components
of auto exhaust emissions. Upon exposure to sunlight, they form
secondary pollutants known as oxidants (photochemical smog.). The
photochemical reaction requires several hours to reach equilibriun,
during which time the mixture is transported far from the emission
areas by the wind flow. The extreme complexity of the photochemical
reactions and the lack of a generally accepted simplified computation
method prevent an exact quantitative conclusion regarding the impact
of the Running Fence traffic on smog levels. However, since a large
percentage of the smog in the Bay Area is believed to be caused by
exhaust emissions, a qualitative feel for the importance of the Fence 135
136
traffic can be obtained by comparing vehicle miles traveled for
Fence and non-Fence activities. Such a comparison indicates that
Fence traffic will constitute less than one percent of the total
vehicle miles traveled in the Bay Area on a heavy viewing day (30,000
visitors). It therefore appears that the Fence traffic will have only
a very small, and probably unmeasurable, impact on the smog level in
the air basin.
c) Mitigation.
The particulate (dust) impact could be reduced by eliminating
unnecessary trips over unpaved surfaces, by water spraying these
surfaces whenever the number of vehicle trips makes spraying worth-
while, and by keeping vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour.
Mitigation of the slight auto exhaust impacts detailed above
will depend upon the elements proposed in the Traffic Management
Plan. Elements that increase the average vehicle speeds (i.e., one-
way roads, flagmen, publicity that contains travel instructions)
or that reduce the number of autos (i.e., mass transit options) will
also serve to reduce the not-very-significant air quality impact.
Die NOISE
Setting
The present sources of noise in the region that would be traversed
by the proposed Fence are varied in nature. They range from artificial,
introduced sources such as garbage-disposal activities and farm operations,
to natural sources like flowing water and waves breaking on the shore.
In an overall area-wide sense; the main noise sources involved are
cattle, turkeys, birds, gurgling streams, and wind in the grass and trees.
However, in the vicinity of the roadways, vehicular traffic is an
important source of noise also.
The sound levels experienced throughout the region are, in general,
relatively low. Median daytime noise levels in over half this area
probably lie under 40 dBA.*>»**
In nearly all the remainder, the current levels experienced appear
to lie well below 60 dBA.*** The two main exceptions occur in those
locations immediately bordering U.S. 101 and the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road
section of Highway 1. In both these instances, median daytime noise levels
during at least some portions of the week will exceed 65 dBA at the
closest residential structures. Sites at which such levels occur are
deemed unacceptable for residential use by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development unless special noise reduction measures are
incorporated into the design of the development (U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 1971).
*dBA: The decibel reading obtained from a sound measurement
instrument with a frequency response similar to that of the human ear.
A 1-dBA change in noise level is just discernible to a trained listener
in a laboratory situation. However, a 2- to 3-dBA change is needed
to be perceivable to most people under normal conditions. A 10-dBA
increase in sound level corresponds roughly to a perceived doubling of
noise.
**This background noise level was estimated from the data on rural
sound levels presented in Wyle Laboratories (1971).
***This judgment is based on calculated noise levels in the vicinity
of the roadways crossing the region.
137
138
Impact
The new sources of noise introduced by the proposed project will
be temporary but numerous. The noise produced can, on the basis of
the basic underlying activity involved, be divided into two distinct
categories: construction/removal noise, and "viewing" noise.
i. Construction/removal noise: The sources of noise introduced
by the proposed project during the approximately 5-month-long construc-
tion and 1-month-long removal periods would be varied in nature. They
would include 6 three-quarter-ton trucks, 1 flat-bed truck, several
moto-mules, and 4 sets of hole-punching and anchor-installing equip-
ment.* Probably the noisiest activity during either of the periods
under discussion would be the hole-punching/anchor-installing operation.
This work could perceivably raise the daytime energy equivalent sound
levels** experienced in areas as distant as 2300 feet (line-of-sight
exposure) or 800 feet (shielded exposure) from the actual construction
site.+ It may, in addition, produce sound levels at distances of
400 feet for unshielded exposures or 100 feet for shielded ones that
will strongly interfere with both outdoor and indoor residential
site activities.++ Such interference would be similar to that pro-
duced by road-paving operations taking place about 700 feet away or
heavy grading activities occurring approximately 1400 feet away
(unshielded exposure). In the proposed situation, the period through-
out which activity interference may take place at any given residence
would be rather short. Even for a unit located immediately next to
the planned Fence, such interference would be experienced for at most
3 days during the entirety of the construction and removal periods.
For most of the 20 to 30 residences so affected by construction noise
@i.e., those within 400 feet of the Fence), the total period involved
would be less than one day. On the other hand, the total duration of
the period during which work on the Fence may be perceivable at a
Single residence could range up to as much as 4 weeks, with intermittent
operations of various kinds.
*Personal and telephone communications with Mr. Burr Heneman,
A&H Builders.
**Energy-equivalent sound level: the constant sound level that
would be experienced if the energy contained in the actually time-
varying noise were released at a constant rate.
+The distances presented here and in the remainder of this
paragraph were calculated on the basis of noise level data presented
in Bolt, Beranek § Newman (1971) or supplied by Mr. Burr Heneman,
A&H Builders. Air absorption of sound was semi-quantitatively considered.
_ ++This conclusion is based in part on the rough set of construc-
tlon noise acceptability guidelines presented in Bolt, Beranek §
Newman (1971).
ii. 'Viewing'' noise: There would be several distinct sources of
noise associated with the proposed project during the viewing period of
up to two weeks. The most important one in an area-wide sense would
be the generated vehicular traffic. On weekdays, such traffic could
conceivably raise the daytime median noise levels experienced along
the local viewing routes and Highway 1 south of Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road from 5- to 23-dBA. As can be seen from Table 7 , the largest
increases would occur along the roadways carrying the smallest amounts
of existing traffic. Since present noise levels are lowest in these
areas, the sound levels produced by the cited changes would all tend
to fall between 60- and 68-dBA. All of the increases under discussion
are of at least some significance, for all would be easily perceivable.
However, those potentially experienced along Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road and along Highway 1 south of Fallon/Two Rock Road are of the most
importance. In these two instances, the sound levels produced could
be high enough to interfere with residential site activities in areas
within 30 to 50 feet of these roadways' centerlines.* Along Petaluma/
Valley Ford Road, fewer than 10 residences would potentially be affected.
For Highway 1, the exact number involved is unknown. However, again,
it is not expected to be large.
The noise-level changes induced on Saturdays and Sundays by the
generated vehicular traffic would be significantly smaller than those
experienced during the week (see Table 7 )** This apparently paradoxical
behavior results from the facts that: 1) the amount of traffic normally
handled at this time of year on either of these days is about double
that handled on a regular weekday; and 2) automobile noise levels go
down as speed goes down, which occurs at higher traffic levels. None
of the traffic noise level increases induced during the weekend period
would produce sound levels high enough to interfere with residential
site activities. Such interference, however, could be experienced
due to congestion-associated noise (i.e., horn honking, vehicles start-
ing and stopping, etc.) during the late afternoon along the more-
heavily-travelled routes.
One point about the previous discussion deserves special emphasis
here. This is that it is in general based on a worst-case analysis
of the situation involved. If fewer than the maximum number of visitor
vehicles judged possible on a weekday (i.e., 8,300) or manageable
on a weekend day (i.e., 10,000) arrive, the noise level changes
induced would in most cases be smaller than those specified above. The
one readily noticeable exception occurs in the case of Stony Poinv
Road. There the weekend increase produced could actually be larger
if fewer people come. Again, this is a result of the speed/noise rela-
tionship.
ni Gaus vena Slane . . - . . .
This conclusion is based on the noise acceptability criteria and
the category definitions presented in U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (1971) and Schultz (1971), respectively, ; 139
**Table 7 is based on traffic-setting information available in
August 1975.
140
TABLE 7
NOISE IMPACT OF THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GENERATED
BY THE PROPOSED Running Fence PROJECT*
Typical Road
Section**
WESs WOl
s/o* Old Redwood
Highway
s/o Railroad Ave.
PETALUMA/ VALLEY FORD
ROAD
w/o Highway 1 I/St
e/o Highway 1 I/S
STONY POINT ROAD
n/o Railroad Ave.
MEACHAM ROAD
s/o Stony Point Rd.
PEPPER ROAD
w/o Stony Point Rd.
Present
Median Day-
time Noise
Level ***
(dBA)
TN BoE
71/69
62/66
59/65
50/57
50/55
39/47
charts presented in Schultz (1971).
noise level increases induced assume the maximum number daily visitors
judged possible (i.e., 25,000 on weekdays, 30,000 on weekends).
Temporary
Project-
Induced
Change in
Median Day-
time Noise
Level (dBA)
eet
+]/-2
+5/-1
+8/+4
+10/+2
+13/+9
+23/+17
Approximate
Resultant
Change in
Perceived
Noise
None/Nonett
None/None
Readily Perceptible
Increase/None
2-Fold Increase/
Perceptible Increase
2-Fold Increase/
None
3-Fold Increase/
2-Fold Increase
5-Fold Increase/
3-Fold Increase
*Noise level evaluation based on traffic-volume/median-noise-level
Traffic volumes used to determine
Average
traffic speed developed from estimated maximum traffic flow rates and
level-of-service calculations.
**Road sections selected listed in order of the amount of traffic
presently carried.
***Approximate median noise level experienced during the period between
6 AM and 10 PM at the front of the closest residential structure to the
trafficway cited.
s/o indicates south of; w/o indicates west Os. EC.
ttweekday/weekend noise levels.
I/S=intersection.
In addition to vehicular traffic, there are three other poten-
tially important noise sources that could be associated with the
proposed project. The first is people stopping to view the Fence.
Any crowd noise they may produce would be limited to the vicinity of
those areas where cars can be parked (i.e., road shoulders). The second
source is aircraft bringing in persons who wish to observe the project
from the air. This activity could increase the noise levels experienced
not only in the region traversed by the Fence itself but also in those
areas surrounding the several small airports present in this part of
the Bay Region. The final source of noise involved is the Fence itself.
Strong winds blowing parallel or sub-parallel to this structure (see
Climate Section) could produce humming of guywires, flapping of
fabric and/or ringing of metal fabric hooks against the metal fence poles.
Mitigation
a) Included as part of the proposed project.
The applicant has already taken, or has indicated that he would
take, several measures that will reduce the noise impacts of the
proposed project.* These include selecting a sparsely inhabited area
distant from the main centers of Bay Area population for the site of
the Running Fence, employing off-duty Sheriff's deputies to keep
viewing-traffic flowing smoothly, restricting the time the Fence
would be up to a maximum of two weeks, limiting Fence construction
and removal activities to daylight hours, and taking down the Fence
early if the projected number of persons arriving exceeds the capacity
of the road network involved.
b) Suggested as possibilities by this report.
Several additional measures could be taken to further reduce the
noise impacts of the proposed project. These include modifying the
equipment used in the Fence construction and removal operations so
that it will produce the least amount of noise practicable, eliminating
roadside parking in the vicinity of any residences involved, and
further reducing the length of time the Fence is up. **
*In the development of the following paragraph, extensive use
was made of personal communications with Christoand Jeanne-Claude
Javacheff and Captain Eric Denton, California State Highway Patrol.
**The last, of course, would mitigate a number of impacts.
141
PO cis! 5 | ae ;
os / ; _ ‘
rT are * - . ; 4 nas 4 a
: 7 Pi) ; my
7 i 7 wte
rv) : ? - '
q ie - 7 i ,
; y :
y nee —si = Te rekanatiies: a 7 Se
et ce aun tas : eC ; a i “ : "os
“7, i The 7 5 7 = \’ : - ; 7 ofS
chat Pee gains a my A ae - oa
A “4 ts es ‘4
oi, : iD : ean ' : , (ae | we ;
be. teh a BaD ie. a eis ee amidst 4p > oie
; ie, “Ale veashe » hy. - i rena ror Ho, ; “hy ee ge pt
Riper Pal eth re hs ie at nd at nde aly”
ay joe ee an * ote!) ie ve an i hat, 0.) oe ra
Fr Eheke eins © rae (oi Ah ae ete & UhY Neary ihe a
arnt wee I. One ne way ape! vy oy | Tass by; pNGE i ;
aera, DAM aT we AMEE |S ae ay a oe & A es: 2m
ao aired Pe ay w o- } “te a A,
(ng = . ry . b . - - jt
Pe i iis itr <r bg SF, Puig ies ae rs LGB. i's be shay . fin S
mi: Shin! p tte A oe wt a hy le Petey 7
as panne ee ne al =f ay erent TS Ue FSi . 3
aa * ;
oP ke | ’ ; , i: mn
Sif. ne - i . rn : a) : * : . nb?
oe ngee eae idl tis Tgh fay 4 - nde: pe a - Lee 7. eS. . ot ae ; 7 : :
, nies Be et i he Oe, he Sur) fy ROA
asineshs! ai, oath ee cit at ep 5 a hy ag : ~* a, (4 vir al
: atin as oa a 1 tel Fact &—"! rs 4 ‘ ‘ — we ’
Be beat | . aL ae at oS a ico. :
Prt 7 aye at a et) et aa ihe! i n° a9 Ri, “eat aba) ise 7 _
2 fib ) ‘4 r ‘i 7 wv ’ 7 7 F
a eine es ie 7 : 7. Ws oe Pers VY ie ah ce a s a
‘
- 7
th 5. 7 ’
ioe ae a ines o*
atte. hula gd Wey) an ; 7 Mes ip 7
Briel aa he Calva is ee ae
-
:
7
eee, - athe. + a ry eee hy hi me 1 38 <a eestee
Sa, a - ory > ne Coe
cod 7°*.¢ aie ; ais 1 xP vee et A} 7 Pr
nl araae He "me ae oy ibs iy i, rh: iin: fray
Peay dine Pee eae ie? ade Ra
wie at iy Ty, pa TARE O01) ae zi aye sate .
ae le i he ee? at puna e eer ; : ;
4 ‘ a ‘. i a
\ - = ¢ 7 Z , ca :
eur | . WA thn Ss
g ’ = ; 7 :
§ ca ’ ' :
, 7 7 4
' 7 "1 i - + iv : ‘
M oA “" is te 4.1 we
erat; ie ifrvetts 12) * an’ pat heeds 5 ,
load 1 e ; ; 7 ,
an a pear’ « 2 ¢ r as ~ oD : mh ne 5 1
7 . ie . t Jn
me 5 ; : - ; x be a4 ;
a. © ih i ¥ eal} “<i ; a .
‘ ay.’ Ale t - oo Vor
‘a ry ; a :
i ‘a r ; 7 = 7 . . i oy i 1 a
) - - in 7 - ' ‘a
a 7 7 ' S » > ire - - 1
an
III. IMPACT OVERVIEW
A. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Traffic is the main (and probably the only) source of unavoid-
able adverse environmental impact. The potential significant impacts
include congestion and traffic noise, which would be temporary, and energy
use. Late-summer weekend traffic to view the Fence may be great
enough to slow down or stop traffic in the area of the Fence route.
As many as 30,000 persons (10,000 autos) per day may travel the country
road network and the freeway in the vicinity of the Fence during the
two scheduled viewing weekends.
Since the traffic for the most part will be kept to the public
right-of-way, no permanent damage or impact is foreseen. Traffic
should return to normal immediately after the removal of the fabric
panels.
Traffic congestion can be minimized if roads are closed
to visitors' autos, and buses are substituted; or reduced somewhat if
other mitigating measures are used as suggested herein. Nevertheless,
a residue of (temporary) impact is almost certain to remain.
B. | RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM IMPACT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Increased traffic, a local short-term impact*, will affect the
county road network and freeway for a maximum period of two weeks in
September, 1976, the viewing phase. Other traffic, during the construc-
tion and removal phases, will not noticeably add to normal traffic in the
Fence route area. All three phases--construction, viewing and removal--
constitute a period of seven months maximum which would be the time
of any additional traffic impact, except for that added by inspecting
and surveying during the permit and planning stages.
*Which may, however, affect traffic movement as far south as
Novato on Freeway 101, and beyond.
143
144
Noise may increase with traffic increase during the viewing phase*,
and air quality will change (but not significantly) with addition of
fuel pollutants. In addition, vegetation, if damaged by the construct-
tion and removal activities and by the movement of the Fence's materials
when in place,is expected to return to normal state within a few years.
Therefore, the above impacts can be considered as local short-term
impacts. These impacts would not interfere in the long-term with the
land and its use, the functioning of the road network, or the lives of
the residents.
C. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The soil cores (3' x 4'') removed for placement of Fence
poles and replaced with sand create an irreversible environmental
change; one that is somewhat comparable to the usual farm
operation of digging post holes for fences. Similarly, the metal guy
anchors will be left in the ground, but these will be tamped down to
a depth of at least 18 inches below the surface of the ground and
the holes will be backfilled with sand. Thus, a total of several
hundred per mile of Fence length will have been punched and back-
filled. Grasses and herbs are expected to grow back to normal within
a few years.
The large-scale irreversible environmental change may very well
be in the ideas and attitudes of people. Running Fence is an idea,
as well as a physical object. Because of this idea, different people
may become more aware of the dairy farm environment of southern Sonoma
County and northern Marin County, and more sensitive to its beauty
and preservation (see Community Attitudes Section). As an idea or an
event, Running Fence will remain in the memories of all of those involved
with the idea, whether they are sympathetic to the project or not.
Also, Running Fence (and with it the Sonoma/Marin landscape) will
be well recorded in film and book form.
D, GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACT
; The event of the viewing of Running Fence, as well as all the
information released on the project in the form of art reviews,
lectures, and exhibitions, will have brought much attention (including
*Where speeds are reduced as a result of heavier traffic, noise
levels can drop. On the other hand, start-and-stop traffic, horn
honking, etc. can raise noise levels.
nationwide and worldwide) to the Sonoma/Marin dairy-farm landscape.
The viewing phase of the Fence will also bring many visitors (up to
30,000 on a peak day), some of whom may be attracted by the numerous
FOR SALE signs in the area. The low-quality agricultural soil, lack
of water and sewer service, high land price, high taxes for non-
agricultural-preserve land, and restrictions on building in the
coastal zone, will tend to discourage land sales beyond the normal
rate of such transactions. Thus growth (other than at current rates)
is not a likely outcome of the project.
145
.
a ;
_ a ty it ai eat Ieee burg 3 ;
“a: . } ; 7 . >
¢
; a’
Fi 84 mic 1 5 AL . he
ce) te hae ii iad Pinte 0 z : “a ;
we cai © 7 | a A hott wi - 7 .
2 q i:
o>, i § Sl i". j 7 455 4 i La! >) 7: ;
eT ‘ho Boe ae eee ae.” 2 At ae
52 is fw heed ae 8 aie ay 1) ea
- - 7 s ’ . ) ‘ } }
} ia a ” 7a ee ys ay i-9 “Uke AM rae | 5 Le!
; i? mac i ae! “Ag ar ue 4 oe Iw w 1° : ; Tes ce
Pe Geen he ell 2G a nf or ; Whe
aa i. : 0 a py Pei WL pay? ;
ried Gy : y 7 ; Ap* | _ a rere. i : oe) hig: iar
: BE PV aL; Pe 7
ey nie ee hie 8975
. “2 7 a -
: i o
_ / a
oP Pet) wai! Vow ae Ait ed LS Cad San Piet | ar
Be! Ae. 6 io Whee +o ee Nidal
ew etm A aS eT.) ae a } ‘ rj
ire e ll, ey VAS AAW oc e's ~~ a f° ; } pies wa
ge! wis Fel he i‘ ce ¥G J ) 7 ‘ ; ‘i> * ah ys y rus \
;
p : a a
Satie A Biase Saye! ty ep iper yt 2 itera
; ines rk a! : Sew rabies r, 1 ( , uy, ra mie iy Welle
1s Lect! 7 ng a 4 I es “HATE ai Qtahieae’
Ot. papas | 6
Seek fpr eran; * S
j
; x ne: 7
we ve ji en | is ah TA As f ye a. rae \% im :
ah a? i) <a. ee Te te ci ee Sige M79 Cis tc
2 or Sash 7A 7 a : ~~ x ioe” ee fr “ ss ; ou 7 ea
Cite Ca mash rar tae ay Li Pate le, ee Sf Awa
spree eon, C ed ALE 4 nv we 2 BET) AEE eT ee
epee Pe, a. ves i ae av -. i) pie ‘ if pay vi ‘Meee eA
ra eyenrre 7 is Ton i fat —te ie
r ¢
DMA EA Sees o hari PAT” 3 Pel tog
i. ae - : Paes A i : jl =
f : ‘
| ay Ue | HT SF rue a : } pit i
Pos Sige?) inks _ tl coe i” ayia als i ‘ y s A) wow
é 1 : i: ; iy 4
, ra oe f ' ' i } re
| ah iv
; . ;
as ‘ii ; a 1
ne @ ‘ ; - ry 9
4
a oe
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
According to the applicant, any alternative that would appreciably
change the route locations of Running Fence (except to avoid geologi-
cally and ecologically sensitive areas) would reduce its artistic
value. The route was originally selected by Christo on the basis
of its concept as a whole--with a beginning and an end--interacting
with road system, terrain, ownerships, and objects on the land. The
local road system would provide intermittent viewing by the public
of the Fence running over rolling grassy hillsides of two watersheds
in front of or behind objects on the land such as large rows or groups
of trees, fences, farms, towns, etc. Nevertheless, alternatives to
the originally proposed route have already been selected or accepted
as detailed below:
NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative implies that the Fence not be constructed in
Sonoma/Marin Counties. All potential adverse environmental effects
in the two counties would be removed. These include, in particular:
(1) potential traffic congestion on peak viewing days; (2) potential
impacts on ecological resources, particularly in the coastal zone.
The applicant would suffer economic loss: much of the total
expense to date. Economic gain to contracting landowners would be
lessened (no supplies or materials); the same would be for county
agencies (no gifts of construction equipment) .
As much of the design, fabrication and testing have already
been done, the Fence would probably be constructed elsewhere. Christo
indicates that he has been invited to construct the Fence in Mexico,
for example. Although the initial concept was conceived before
selection of the site, the artist feels that a location other than
Sonoma/Marin Counties (picked as most choice among several choices)
would produce a less meaningful product.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE IN SAME LOCAL AREA
In general, the major potential environmental impact, traffic
congestion during viewing, is not likely to be reduced by minor
147
148
adjustments in the Fence route location. That is, there is no
reason to believe that any other Fence route, of the same length,
in the same general area, will have lesser traffic impacts (unless
an alternative Fence route would cause the Fence to be out of view
from the local road network, which is not possible). In part, this
route has already been chosen to minimize other types of impacts;
for example, it bypasses known landslide areas, and stays away as
much as possible from areas with steep slopes.
Traffic congestion in what appears to be one critical section
of the Fence route which can be seen from Highway 101 could be
mitigated by removal of the Fence segments on Meacham Hill and in
the Stony Point Road area. This would eliminate congestion and
possible accidents due to slowing by viewing traffic from Highway
101, and might reduce the casual traffic attracted to the route;
that is, visitors unaware of the project until they see it from
the freeway.
Removal of internal segments of the Fence might reduce poten-
tial congestion and accidents at unobstructed viewing points along
the main Fence route trafficway. However, breaking up of the Fence
into discontinuous segments would, according to the applicant,
greatly reduce its artistic value, the effectuation of the artist's
concept.
Deletion of the coastal zone portion would remove the possi-
bility of trespassers in the most geologically and ecologically
sensitive areas of the Fence route, and resolve any question
of ecological damage to the coastal bluff and the surf zone.
The artist considers this section of the Fence very
important to his concept, but he is aware of the possibility
that the Fence could be built without the coastal section. That
is, he was prepared to go ahead without it after the denial of a
permit by the statewide Coastal Zone Commission, when he still
had hopes of constructing the inland portion of the Fence in the
summer of 1975. Also, the currently proposed coastal-zone
section is different from the original Estero de San Antonio routing.
In particular, it reaches the coast at a point at some distance (at
least 3/4 of a mile) from both nearby Esteros.
_ The applicant has accepted conditions which dictate last-
minute adjustments of the route based on recommendations by a
biologist who would accompany the construction parties.
CHANGE IN LENGTH OF VIEWING PERIOD
The viewing period could be shortened to include only one
weekend, or perhaps no weekends, depending on the conclusions
of the suggested Traffic Management Plan. If the full two-week
viewing period were scheduled as part of the permit process, the
viewing period would be shortened (after construction) if the
commander of the local-area State Highway Patrol Office were to
request it on the basis of weekday traffic experience.
149
oe ‘ds.hig, ca wide a?
ie 7 ; 7 I ; - - a .
a o Us a
S AY * j J i , ;
is ™ < PP 7 1 - i ne ‘ FP nee a
yy 7¢ ih Seeue es
=
Creel ¢ . av 7 oe y Mew 3 oy oh - ‘
ane Fa “9 cy at even bet ; a : iin IN bale
Oy ice al ha mal Feat Delain es 7 yet hoe
Ww
se
rh Dy cL ee yell oa La on - et Pig q oT
Pent PRO 21, (Tos Waa 3 ae: eee 8
ali A AA! ves ia ry
Ai i ee
ky ae ee i gh» S 4h esi Viet iu ; y Aa
ae 3% one #0 ’ ; ‘ ra rae L 7 oy | -Y + ,
ie a oe he es 7 re he a i ac ar yes ; : arts @ ,
- : ol a : . aw : ' . ft ot .
Po) net é a (vy ® j eR come) a a
Os oi » & ae ' > :
eo is : ze Sep ci 7-4) % ni r 2 el ) nF Mi
ye : i
iF ay ew, \ ere ;
i. 3 > ii 3e a ' | wat ;
tae 7) POR ee) ere an hve
5 orl Tee Vee 1 a7 ee :
j ; on : '
bane } it, ed ath Mh ‘ ar
vw :
} a
- Se
a ks we
_ : af yy a
if -
YY “os
, ,*
: '
7 ; F 7 ;
16 aie ii
‘<4 yo! 7 > :
; 7 ;
. ’
— 7 i
- ; : vo =
- wy :
7 +. 7 , ; 7
we “7 a e
¢ a "J 1» - - a
ey a 2
ie ny ae 4 ie
; 7. in a oO. : : ’ 7 is
- ; 7) -
7 iv 1 s 7 Avy 7 i
un re) - —
APPENDIX A
REPORT PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Environmental
Science Associates (ESA), Paul Zigman, President. The project leader,
Dr. Richard Cole, and the deputy project leader, Ms. Gerry Wolff,
were assisted by ESA staff members: Mr. Charles B. Bennett, Ms. Irene
J. Chan, Mr. Clyde R. Davis, Ms. Kathleen G. Gundry, Ms. Jo Julin,
Mr. Thomas H. Lindenmeyer, Mr. Jon C. Merkle, Mr. William L. Selleck
and Ms. Judith B. Whipple. Donald Goodrich and Archaeological Con-
sulting and Research Services, Inc. (see Appendix lL.) served as
consultants to ESA on traffic and archaeology, respectively. As
consultants to the Sonoma County Pianning Department, Dr. Welton L.
Lee, California Academy of Sciences, Dr. John R. Arnold, Professor of
Biology, State College, Sonoma, and Dr. Charles Quibell, Associate
Professor of Biology, California State College, Sonoma, provided the
subsections on marine biology, terrestrial fauna, and terrestrial
flora, respectively. Assessment of the integrity of the ocean portion
of Running Fence was performed by Environmental Research Consultants,
Inc.,Arcata, California (see Appendix M ), under contract
to the Sonoma County Planning Department.
15]
APPENDIX B
SOURCES OF INFORMATION (ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS)
Information was received from the following organizations and
individuals during the preparation of this report:
Sonoma County
Planning Department
Mr. Thomas Cordill, Environmental Administrator
Mr. Lloyd Johnson, Zoning Administrator
Mr. Robert Pocan, Planner
Public Works Department
Mr. Walter Laab, Traffic Engineer
Office of Building Inspector
Ms. Anna Lee Wilcox, Clerk-Typist IV
Agricultural Commission
Mr. Harry McCracken, Commissioner
Superintendent of Schools
Mr. Dick Bacon, Assistant Superintendent
Sheriff's Department
Captain Charles Kishbaugh
Running Fence Corporation
Jeanne-Claude Javacheff, President
Christo Javacheff, Assistant Secretary (and artist)
152
Running Fence Corporation--Current Accountants, Affiliates,
Attorneys, and Contractors
A & H Builders--Mr. Burr Heneman
URS Research Company--Mr. H.G. (Marty) Abell, Jr.
URS/The Ken R. White Company--Dr. Ernest C. Harris
Paul Kayfetz, Attorney
Howard, Prim, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady and Pollack--
Mr. Stephen Tennis
Harry Auerbach, CPA--Mr. Harry Auerbach
J.K. Lasser and Company, CPA--Mr. R.H. Krako
Maysles Films, Inc.--Mr. Albert Maysles, President and
Mr. David Maysles, Vice President
Henry N. Abrams, Inc.--Mr. Henry N. Abrams, Chairman
Bryan §& Murphy Associates, Inc.--Mr. Robert L. Floyd
U.S. Fish §& Wildlife Service
Mr. Daniel Anderson
California State Highway Patrol
Captain Eric Denton, Commander, Santa Rosa Area Office
Lt. Robert Greer
California State Department of Fish and Game
Lt. Rich Eliott
California State Division of Forestry
Mr. Gerald Murphy, Sonoma Office
Mr. Ron Matiali, Sonoma Office
Marin County
Planning Department
Mr. Harvey E. Bragdon, Chief of Current Planning
Mr. Ray Ahearn, Planner
Ms. Kathleen Ohlson, Environmental Planner
Sheriff's Department
Captain Harvey Teague 153
154
City of Petaluma
Mr. Don Martin, Appraiser, Assessor's Office
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Pt. Reyes Bird Observatory--Mr. John Smail
Newport (R.I.) "Monumenta''--Mr. William A. Crimmins, President
Kassel, West Germany ''Documenta''--Dr. Arnold Bode
"Wrapped Coast’, Syndey, Australia--Mr. John Kaldor, Project
Coordinator
Rifle (Colorado) Chamber of Commerce
Mr. George Musselman, President
Mr. Allen R. Koeneke, Former President
University of Colorado Museum--Professor William A. Weber,
Curator
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTACT LIST (Dr. Welton L. Lee)
Several local biologists were consulted as to their personal
knowledge of the area and the possibility of special biological
Significance relative to commercial use, their ongoing research, or
to educational use of the area. In addition, two oceanographers
were consulted to establish the stability of the ocean portion of
the Fence.
1. Dr. Robert Andrews--Oceanographer, U.S. Navy Postgraduate School
2. Dr. Edward Thornton--Oceanographer, U.S. Navy Postgraduate School
5. Dr. Edward Smith--Marine Biologist, Pacific Marine Station
4. Dr. Dennis Breedlove--Botanist, California Academy of Sciences
5. Mr. Paul Kayfetz--Attorney to Running Fence Corporation
6. Mr. Burr Heneman--A § H Builders, Project Coordinator for Running
Fence Corporation
7. Dr. Joel W. Hedgpeth--Marine Biologist
8. California Fish and Game--Menlo Park
SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING = 2:5) 5) 5) VM EIN) DiOiE WINIOs TA EVN UE
BAN Ane Ry © SVAN, (CVA) EINE ORIN GIA, 99) 5540) I = PHONES 7107: Si TSS 2A 2
GEORGE KOVATCH, PLANNING DIRECTOR
October 23, 1975
Mr. Paul Zigman
Environmental Science Associates
1291 East Hillsdale Blvd,
Foster City, California 94404
Dear Paul:
For purposes of completing the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the “Running
Fence" project, the following information is provided,
The undersigned has consulted with the other public agencies having jurisdiction
over the project, with regard to the acceptance of Sonoma County as the lead
agency in preparing the Environmental Impact Report, and to ascertain whether
or not the existing record of communications, meetings, public hearings and
other proceedings, involving past deliberations of those various agencies,
represents the agencies' concerns in relation to the project.
The following is a list of the individuals, and the various agencies with which
they are connected, who have been contacted:
1. County of Marin, San Rafael, California:
Mr. Tom Severns, Environmental Administrator
Mr. Joel Rubey, Environmental Hearing Officer
Ms. Kathy Ohlson, Planning Department
2. State Lands Division, State of California, Sacramento:
Mr. Robert Hight, Chief Counsel, State Lands Commission
Mr. William Northrup, State Lands Commission Staff
3. North Central Coast Regional Commission, San Rafael, California:
Mr. Mike Fischer, Executive Director
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California:
Mr. Tom Stone, Permit Division
Mr. Tom Crews, Environmental Division.
The response of all individuals is agreement that Sonoma County is acceptable as
the lead agency and that the above-mentioned documents pertaining to proceedings
of these agencies represent, in general, their concerns with regard to the project.
All of these agencies will receive the Draft Environmental Impact Report for comments.
Very truly yours,
155
GEORGE KOVATCH, Planning Director
THOMAS E.
Environmental\ Administrator
156
APPENDIX C
REFERENCE LIST
Air Weather Service, Undated, Uniform Summary of Surface Weather
Observations San Francisco 1948-1965, National Climatic Center,
Asheville, North Carolina.
Armstrong, C.F., 1974, Landslides and Relative Slope Stablility,
Sonoma County Planning Department, Santa Rosa.
BAAPCD, 1974, Air Currents, June, pg. 3, San Francisco.
BAAPCD, 1975, Air Currents, April, pg. 3, San Francisco.
Blake, M.C.; J.T. Smith, C.M. Wentworth, and R.H. Wright, 1971,
Preliminary Geologic Map of Western Sonoma County and Northernmost
Marin County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco.
Bloomfield Ranch EIR, 1973, Sonoma County (Elgar Hill
Environmental Planning and Architecture)
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971, Noise From Construction Equipment
and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco.
California Department of Water Resources, 1971, wind in California,
Resources Agency, Sacramento.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1949, Mines and Mineral
Deposits of Sonoma County, California, County Map Series, California
Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1972, Earthquake Intensities-
Occurrences of Intensities VI-VIII in California from 1810-1969,
Seismic Safety Information Packet 72-4, California Division of Mines
and Geology, Sacramento.
Federal Highway Administration, 1974, simplified Analysis Technique
for Estimating Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Highway Facilities,
Appendix B, FWA-EIS-73-01-F, Department of Transportation,
San Francisco.
Findley, Lams J
97 "Christo and the Battle of Running Fence,"
ciey, July 14.19
9,
975.
Foxakeb. yaad. eSims) JeAe Bartow, and: £.J. Heliley,, 1973),
Preliminary Geologic Map of Eastern Sonoma County and Western
Napa County, California, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-483,
U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco.
Jennings, C.W., 1973, State of California Preliminary Fault and
Geologic Map, Preliminary Report 13, California Divisionof Mines
and Geology, Sacramento.
Leach, HER, J2M. Brode, ‘S.l. Nicoila, 1974, atrthe Crossroads),
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Marin County Planning Department, Spake 1974,
Marin County Statistical Abstract.
Mason, Jack, 1975, "Tomales Bay Was a Bit of Switzerland in Marin,"
Marin Magazine, San Rafael Independent Journal, Saturday, July 26,
LOST
Miller, V.C., J.A. DeLapp, B.F. Smith, F.U. Graham,» R.W. Hansen,
J.H. Kashiwagi, G. Lambert, L.R. Piontkowski, 1972, Soil Survey
of Sonoma County, California, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Santa
Rosa.
PEDCO -- Environmental Specialists, Incorporated, 1973,
Investigation of Fugitive Dust -- Sources Emissions and Control,
prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS, Springfield,
Virginia.
Powell, W. Robert, 1974, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California, California Native Plant Society Special
Publication #1, Berkeley.
Rice, S.J. and Strand, R.G., 1971, Report to Accompany Geologic and
Slope Stability Maps of the Tennessee Valley, Lucas Valley, and
North Coastal Areas, Marin County, California, California Division
of Mines and Geology, San Francisco.
Schultz, T.J., 1971, HUD Noise Assessment Guidelines -- Technical
Background, PB 210591, NTIS, Springfield, Virginia.
Smithsonian Institution, 1975, Endangered and Threatened Plant
Species of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office
#94-A, Washington, D.C.
Sonoma County Economic Development Board, 1974, Sonoma County
Data File. 157
158
Sonoma County Planning Department, 1975, Sonoma County General Plan
Bulletin-Summary Composite Alternatives.
Travis, Russell B., 1949, Geologic and Economic Maps of the Sebastopol
Quadrangle, California, (Bulletin 162), California Division of Mines
and Geology, San Francisco.
URS Research Co. files on Environmental Assessment of Christo's
Running Fence.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1971, Noise
Abatement and Control: Departmental Policy, Implementation
Responsibilities and Standards, Circular 1390.2, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1971, Precipitation Depth-Duration-Frequency
Relations for the San Francisco Bay Region, California, San Francisco.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1967, Report and General Soil Map,
Marin County, California, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Point Reyes
Station, California.
U.S. Weather Bureau, Undated, Climatography of the United States
No. 20-04: Santa Rosa, Redwood City.
Webster, D.A., 1972 a, Map Showing Ranges in Probable Maximum Well
Yield From Water-Bearing Rocks in the San Francisco Bay Region,
Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-431, U.S. Geological Survey,
San Francisco.
Webster, D.A., 1972 b, Map Showing Areas in the San Francisco Bay
Region Where Nitrate, Boron, and Dissolved Solids in Ground Water
May Influence Local or Regional Development, Miscellaneous Field
Studies Map MF-432, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1975, Erosion Potential Reconnaissance,
Christo Running Fence, Coastal Bluffs near Dillon Beach, Marin County,
California, Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, San Francisco.
Wyle Laboratories, 1971, Community Noise, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, San Francisco.
Zane, Maitland, 1975, ''Court OK's Petaluma's Growth Limit",
San Francisco Chronicle, August 14, 1975.
Christo, 1973, Christo Valley Curtain, Henry N. Abrams, Inc.,
Publishers, New York.
1.
Ze
36
4,
5e
6.
Te
8.
9
13.
i4.
SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE LIST
(DONALD K. GOODRICH)
Post Mile System for Accident Location Identification report pre-
pared by the Department of Public Works, County of Sonoma,
July 1973 e
Letter to Mr. George Musselman, Manager, Independent Lumber Com-
pany, Rifle, Colorado, from Ms. Gerry Wolff, ESA, July 24,
1975+
Letter from Mr. Allen R. Koeneke, President, The First National
Bank in Rifle, Rifle, Colorado, to Ms. Gerry Wolff, ESA,
July 30, 1975
Partial map - Revised Route of Christo's Running Fence in Marin
County, by URS/The Ken R. White Co., July 5, 19756
Partial map - Property Sketch for Running Fence Corporation,
Christo's Running Fence Project, Sonoma County and Marin
Counties, California, by Bryan & Murphy Associates, Ince,
July 30, 1975-6
Daily Schedule of Events, 1975 Sonoma County Fair, July 14-26,
19756
1974 Post Mile Book, Sonoma County, Department of Public Works.
Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin, Transportation Study, Technical
Report, Phase 1, Summary.
Sonoma County, Transportation Study, Technical Report, Phase 1,
prepared by JHK & Associates.
Sonoma County, Transportation Study, Technical Report, Phase 2,
prepared by JHK & Associates.
Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin, Commuter Survey, prepared
by Albert Solnit, General Plan Consultant, 1974.
Sonoma County "Stay-A-Day" prepared under the auspices of the
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in cooperation with
local Chambers of Commerce.
Traffic Counts by Sonoma County Traffic Department, 1973-1975.
Accident heer ts by Sonoma County Traffic Department, 1973 and
1974. :
159
266
160
Goodrich References (Cont. ) {
Letter to Mr. George Kovatch, Planning Director, Sonoma County
Planning Department from Mr. Le Newman, Chief, Highway
Operations, Caltrans, February 5, 1975.
Letter to Mr. Robert Pocan, Sonoma County Planning Board, from
Captain Eric Denton, Santa Rosa Area, California Highway
Patrol, February 10, 1975.
Staff report from Sonoma County Planning Department, January 23,
1975.
Letter to all commissioners, California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission, from Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director,
State Commission, re: Minutes of State Commission Meeting
of June 17-18, 1975.
Letter to Captain Charley Kishbaugh, Sheriff's Department, Sonoma
County, from Mr. Burr Heneman, Project Coordinator, A & H
Builders, Inc., April 4, 1975.
Letter to Fire Chief Pedroli, Marin County, from Mr. T. L. Dougherty.
) President, A & H Builders, Inc., March 26, 1975.
Letter to Ranger-in-Charge Frank Crossfield, Califomia Division
of Forestry, from Mr. Burr Heneman, Project Coordinator,
A & H Builders, Inc., April 3, 1975.
Letter to Mr. Donald Neuwirth, California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission, from Mr. H. E. Abell, Jr., AIP, Senior Planner,
URS Research Company, May 21, 1975.
Excerpts from report by URS Research Company on the Christo
Running Fence, April 8, 1975.
Staff report to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
meeting of April 17, 1975
Telephone calls to the following: Sonoma County Fair Association;
Christian Brothers Winery; Napa County Chamber of Commerce;
Berringer Winery; Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce;
Angel's Camp, Calaveras District Fair; Renaissance Pleasure
Faire; Mill Valley Fall Arts Festival Committee; Santa Rosa
Chamber of Commerce; Sonoma-Marin Fair; and Sears Point
International Raceway.
North Coast Harbor Study prepared by JHK & Associates for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973. 2
7°
8
=.
Goodrich References (Cont. )
Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study, Area 1 report, 19756
Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study, Area 3 report, 1975.
"A Policy on Design of. Urban Highway and Arterial Streets'', American
Association of State Highway Officials.
161
162
SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE LIST
_ (DRS. JOHN R. ARNOLD AND CHARLES QUIBELL)
Abrams, LeRoy, Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, Ca. Vol. 1, 1940; Vol. 2, 1944;
Vol. 3, 1951, Vol. 4 with Roxana S. Ferris, 1960.
Grinnelie Ja, J.s. Dixon, and J.J. Linsdale, 1937. Fur-=bearim,
Mammals of California, Vols. 1 and 2, University of California
Press (berkeley) Cae
Hall, E.R. and K.R. Kelson, 1959. The Mammals of North America,
2 vols. The Ronald Press, New York, New York.
Howell, John T., Marin Flora, Manual of Flowering Plants and
Ferns of Marin County. University of California Press, Berkeley,
Ca. 2nd edition, with supplement, 1970.
Ingles, Lloyd G., 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford
Press, Stanford, Ca.
Munz, Philip A., 1959. A California Flora,* University of
California Press, Berkeley, Ca.
Powell, W.R. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California. Special Public. No. 1 of the California Native
Plant Society, Berkeley, Ca. 1974.
Stebbins, Robert C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and
Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, Mass.
SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE LIST
(DR. WELTON L. LEE)
Bolin, R.L. and Abbott, D.P. 1963. Studies on the Marine Climate
and Phytoplankton of the Central Coastal Area of California.
1954-1960. Rept. Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fish Invest. 9: 23-45.
*and Supplement (1968)
Appendix JD. Rare and Endangered Native Plants of southwestern
sonoma and adjacent Marin County: (Sources:CNPS
Inventory (1974); Photocopies of labels of
herbarium specimens from all major California
herbaria; the collections of the North Coast
Herbarium of California)
The following taxa, taken from the CIPS lists, were carefully
considered as to the likelihood of their occurrence within or
near the easement and route of Running Fence. Only those
marked with an asterisk (*) were found to be reasonable candi-
dates. These decisions were based on field studies of the
actual route, actual known collection sites, and a knowledge,
both personal and from the literature, of the specific habitat
requirements of each of the species. Evidence upon which the
others were rejected is similarly extensive and was judged
too much to include in this report. Interested persons wishing
to review this may contact Dr. Charles Quibell at the North
Coast Herbarium, Department of Biology, California State
College, Sonoma. Establishing an appointment by telephone is
strongly advised. Field records of the native and introduced
species observed during the field studies on which this report
are based including lists and actual specimens, are also on
file at the North Coast Herbarium. Permission to peruse these
materials may be obtained by contacting Dr- Quibell as indicated
above.
Acrostis aristiglumis Swall. (Avmed bent-grass)
*. blasdalei Witche- var. marinensis Crampton (Marin bent-grass)
*R. Clivicola Crampton var. punta-reyesensis Crampton (Pt.
~ Reyes b-g-)
*Alopecurus aequalis Sobol. var. sonomensis Rubtzoff (Sonoma
alopecurus
*Arabis blepharophylla H.&A. (Coast rock-cress)
Arctostaphylos eee Eastw. (Baker's Manzanita)
Rs eee M.S. Baker (Vine Hill Manzanita)
A. virgata bastwe in Sarg. (Bolinas Manzanita)
Astragalus clarinus Jeps. eae Hunt's Rattleweed)
Blennosperma bakeri Heiser (Baker's blennosperma)
B. nanum (Hook) Dlake var. robustum J.T. Howell (Pt. Reyes
~ ‘Dlennosperma)
Calamavrostis crassiglumis Thurb. (Thurber's reed—-grass)
*Cam Sais Californica (Kell.) Heller (Swamp hare-bell)
*Carex albida Bailey (White sedge)
Castilleja leschkeana J.T. Howell (Pt. Reyes Indian Paintbrush)
Ceanothus ¢loriosus J-T. Howell var. porrectus J.T. Howell
Tt. Vision ceanothus)
163
164
D. Concluded
*Chorizanthe valida Wats. (Sonoma chorizanthe)
Cordylanthus brunneus (Gees) Penn. ssp. capillaris
cane Chuang eck. een
Cordylanthus maritimus Nutt. ssp. palustris (Behr.) Chuang
G CCKe
Delphinium bakeri Ewan (Baker's delphinium)
*D. aS Heller (Yellow larkspur)
Drosera rotundifolia L. (Round-leaved sundew)
Erysimum ftranciscanum Rossb. var. franciscanum (San Francisco
sunt Lower
Lasthenia burkei (Greene) Greene (Burke's baeria)
Limnanthes vinculans Ornduff (Ornduff's meadow-—foam)
Lupinus tidestromii Greene var. layneae (Iastw.) Munz.
(Pt. Reyes Lupine)
Polygonum marinense Mertens & Raven (Marin knotweed)
*Potentilla hickmanii Eastw. (Hickman cinquefoil)
*Rhynchospora californica Gale (California beaked-rush)
Tanacetum camphoratum Less. (Dune tansy)
Appendix E
AMPHIBIANS FOUND Iii SONOMA COUNTY*
_ Observed in Likely to be
Vicinity of Easement Found in or near
Name Sepiie 1975 Easement
Siac Salamander
Ambystoma tigrinum
Pacific Giant Salamander
(Dicamptodon ensatus)
Rough-skinned Newt
(Taricha granulosa)
California Newt x
(Taricha torosa)
Red-bellied Newt
(Taricha rivularis)
Ensatina 6
(Ensatina eschscholtzi)
California Slender Salamander Bd
(Batrachoseps attenuatus)
Black Salamander KG
(Aneides flavipunctatus)
ae Salamander
Aneides lugubris)
Western Toa
(Bufo boreas)
Pacific Treefrog x
(Hyla regilla)
Red—- aro Frog
(Rana aurora)
MSN OS
eee ee Frog X
Rana boylei
Bullfrog x
(Rana catesbeiana)
*Specimens of each species have been taken in Sonoma County ;
most are represented in the collection at California State
College, Sonoma.
165
Appendix F
REPTILES FOUND IN SONOMA COUNTY *
Observed in Likely to be
Vicinity of Easement Found in or near
Name Sept. 1975 Easement
hie ace Pond Turtle
Cle s marmorata)
Western Fence Lizard A
(Sceloporus occidentalis) ,
Sagebrush Lizard
(Sceloporus graciosus)
Western okKink
(Eumeces skiltonianus)
Southern Alligator Lizard
(Gerrhonotus multicarinatus)
Northern Alligator bizard Xx
(Gerrhonotus coeruleus)
Rubber Boa
(Charina bottae)
Pacific ring—-neck Snake X
(Diadophis punctatus)
Sharp-tailed Snake
(Contia tenuis)
Racer
(Coluber oonstrictor)
Gopher snake Xx
(Pituophis melanoleucus)
Common Kingsnake x
(Lampropeltis getulus)
Common Garter Snake x
(Thamnophis sirtalis)
Been Terrestrial Garter Snake x x
Thamnophis a
ans)
Western Aquatic Garter Snake Ke
(Thamnophis couchi)
Western eee
(Crotalus viridis)
¥Specimens of each species have been taken in Sonoma County, most
species are represented in the collection at California State
College, Sonoma.
166
Appendix G
BIRDS RECORDED IN SONOMA COUNTY
Likely to
! Observed in Occur in this
Vicinity of Easement Vicinity between
Name Sept. 1975 April and August
Common Loon X x
Yellow-billed Loon
Arctic Loon x
Red—throated Loon X
Red-necked Grebe
Horned Grebe
Eared Grebe x
Western Grebe x X
Pied—billed Grebe X
Wandering Albatross
Black-footed Albatross
Fulmar
Pink-footed Shearwater
Flesh-footed Shearwater
New Zealand Shearwater
Sooty Shearwater
Ashy Petrel
Black Petrel
White Pelican
Brown Pelican xX x
Double-crested Cormorant
Brandt's Cormorant xX X
Pelagic Cormorant X X
Magnificent Frigatebird
Great Blue Heron x X
Green Heron
Little Blue Heron
Cattle Egret
Great Egret aK X
Snowy Egret x
Black-crowned Night Heron x X
American Bittern
Whistling Swan
Trumpeter Swan
Canada Goose
Black Brant
White-fronted Goose
Snow Goose
Mallard X x
Gadwall
Pintail xX
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
167
G. Continued
Name
Cinnamon Teal
American Widgeon
Northern Shoveler
Wood Duck
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Canvasback
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Oldsquaw
Harlequin Duck
White-winged Scoter
Surf Scoter
Black Scoter
Ruddy Duck
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Turkey Vulture
White-tailed Kite
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Ferruginous Hawk
Golden Eagle
Bald Eagle
Marsh Hawk
Osprey
Prairie Falcon
Peregrine Falcon
Merlin
American Kestrel
California Quail
Mountain Quail
Ring-necked Pheasant
Clapper Rail
Virginia Rail
sora
Common Gallinule
American Coot
Black Oystercatcher
Semi-palmated Plover
Killdeer
168
Observed in Vicinity
of Easement
sept. 1975
Ped Pd ops Ps
rs
Ps Ps
Likely to Occur
in this Vicinity
between April
and August
rs PS PS
ms PIP Pa PS Ps PS
PSPS PSPS PS
res
G. Continued
Likely to Occur
Observed in Vicinity in this Vicinity
9 of Easement between April
Name Sept. 1975 and August
American Golden Plover
Black—bellied Plover
Surfbird
Ruddy Turnstone
Black Turnstone .
Common Snipe x a
Long-billed Curlew
Spotted Sandpiper
Whimbrel Xx X
Solitary Sandpiper
Wandering Tattler
Willet
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Red Knot
Rock Sandpiper
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Baird's Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper x
Dunlin
Short—billed Dowitcher
Wester Sandpiper
Marbled Godwit
Ruff
Sanderling
American Avocet
Black=-necked Stilt
Red Phalarope
Wilson's Phalarope
Northern Phalarope x xX
Pomarine Jaeger
Parasitic Jaeger
Skua
Glaucous Gull
Glaucous-winged Gull
Western Gull x xX
Herring Gull
Thayer's Gull
PS PS PS
Ps PS
Ps PS
rs PS
California Gull x xe
Ring-billed Gull x axe
Mew Gull
Bonaparte's Gull
Heermann's Gull
Black-legged Kittiwake
Sabine's Gull
Forster's Tern xX aK
Common Tern
Elegant Tern
Caspian Tern
169
G. Continued
Name
Black Tern
Common Murre
Pigeon Guillemot
Marbled Murrelet
Ancient Murrelet
Cassin's Auklet
Rhinoceros Auklet
Tufted Puffin
Band-tailed Pigeon
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Roadrunner
Barn Owl
Screech Owl
Great Horned Owl
Snowy Owl
Pygmy Owl
Burrowing Owl
Spotted Owl
Long-eared Owl
Short—eared Owl
Saw-whet Owl
Poorwill
Common Nighthawk
Vaux's Swift
White-throated Swift
Anna's Hummingbird
Rufous Hummingbird
Allen's Hummingbird
Calliope Hummingbird
Belted Kingfisher
Common Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Acorn Woodpecker
Lewis' Woodpecker
Yellow-—bellied Sapsucker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Nuttall's Woodpecker
Eastern Kingbird
Tropical Kingbird
Western Kingbird
Ash-throated Flycatcher
Black Phoebe
Say's Phoebe
Willow Flycatcher
Western Flycatcher
170
Observed in Vicinity
of Easement
Sept. 1975
PS PS
Likely to Occur
in this Vicinity
between April
and August
bM oby bbs
Ps PS
Ps PS PS
G. Continued
Name
Western Wood Pewee
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Horned Lark
Violet-green Swallow
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Rough-winged Swallow
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Purple Martin
Steller's Jay
serub Jay
Yellow-billed Magpie
Common Raven
Common Crow
Chestnut—backed Chickadee
Plain Titmouse
Bushtit
White—breasted Nuthatch
Red—breasted Nuthatch
Pygmy Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Wrentit
Dipper
House Wren
Winter Wren
Bewick's Wren
Long@billed Marsh Wren
Canyon Wren
Rock Wren
Mockingbird
Gray Catbird
California Thrasher
American Robin
Varied Thrush
Hermit Thrush
Swainson Thrush
Western Bluebird
Mountain Bluebird
Townsend's Solitaire
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Water Pipit
Bohemian Waxwing
Cedar Waxwing
Phainopepla
Observed in Vicinity
of Easement
Sept. 1975
Ww
4
Ps PS
Xx
Likely to Occur
in this Vicinity
between April
and August
PS Ps PS
PSS PS
PS PS PS PS PS PS
Xx
Ps Ps
PS PS PS PS
171
G. Continued
Name
Northern Shrike
Loggerhead Shrike
Common Starling
Hutton's Vireo
Solitary Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Black-and-white Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Orange-crowned Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Parula Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Black-throated Gray Warbler
Townsend's Warbler
Hermit Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Palm Warbler
MacGillivray's Warbler
Yellowthroat
Yellow—breasted Chat
Wilson's Warbler
American Redstart
House Sparrow
Western Meadowlark
Yellow—headed Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Tri-colored Blackbird
Hooded Oriole
Northern Oriole
Brewer's Blackbird
Brown—headed Cowbird
Western Tanager
Summer Tanager
Summer Tanager
Black—headed Grosbeak
Lazuli Bunting
Painted Bunting
Evening Grosbeak
Purple Finch
House Finch
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
Lesser Goldfinch
Lawrence's Goldfinch
Red Crossbill
172
Observed in Vicinity
of Easement
Sept. 1975
xX
Xx
Ps PS
Psa Ps
Ps PS
Likely to Occur
in this Vicinity
between April
and August
PSPS PS PS
PS
PS PSPS PS
Ps PS
PS PS PS PS
G. Concluded
Likely to Occur
Observed in Vicinity in this Vicinity
of Easement between April
Green-tailed Towhee
Rufous-sided Towhee xX X
Brown Towhee X x
Savannah Sparrow x X
Vesper Sparrow
Xx x
Lark Sparrow
Rufous-—crowned Sparrow
Sage Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco X
Chipping Sparrow
Brewer Sparrow
Black-chinned Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow xX X
Golden-crowned Sparrow
White-—throated Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow
173
174
Appendix H
MAMMALS OF SONOMA COUNTY*
Likely to be
Name Animals, tracks or sign in or near
Broad-footed Mole Sept. 1975** Easement
(Scapanus latimanus) a x
Shrew—mole Xx
(Neurotrichus gibbsii)
ye Shrew xX
Sorex vagrans
Ornate Shrew
(Sorex ornatus)
Trowbridge's Shrew
(Sorex trowbridgii) x
Bats
Little Brown Myotis
(Myotis lucifugus)
Yuma otis
(Myotis anemsis)
eee ily O .
Myotis evotis
Fringed Myotis
(M. thysanodes)
Long-legge otis
(M. volans)
California Myotis
(M. californicus)
Silver-haired Ba
(Lasionycteris noctivagans)
Big Brown Ba
(Eptesicus fuscus)
Red bat
(Lasiurus borealis)
Hoary Bat X
(Lasiurus cinereus)
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
Xx
(Corynorhinus townsendii)
peta Bat x
Antrozous pallidus)
Brazilian (formerly Mexican)
Free-tailed Bat
(Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana)
Brush habbit — xX x
(Sylvilagus bachmani)
*Actual specimens from Sonoma County, as represented in the
collection at Califormia State College, Sonoma, plus a study
of the literature and other collections have been used to
compile this list.
**Since most mammals are nocturnal, a complete list would result
only after considerable trapping and/or netting.
MAMMALS OF SONOMA COUNTY (CONT'D)
Likely to be
Animals, tracks or si in or neer
“ane Sept OSes ae Easement
Black-tailed Jack Rabbit Ne xX
(Lepus californicus)
Townsend's 1pmun
(Eutamias townsendii)
Sonoma Chip
(E. Sonomae)
California Ground Squirrel X
(Spermophilus beecheyi)
he ern Gray aoe
Sciurus griseus
oe Squirre
Tamiasciurus douglasii)
Pocket Gopher, Variously called
Botta (Thomomys BELtaS) or X X
Southern Pocket Gopher
(Thomomys umbrinus minor)
Heermann's Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys heermanni )
Western vest Mouse
(Reithrodontomys megalotis) X
Salt-marsh Harvest Mouse
(R. raviventris)
Deer Ifouse
(Peromyscus maniculatus) X
Brush oe
(P. boylii)
Pinon Mouse (P. truei)
Dusky-footed Woodrat
(Nectoma fuscipes)
Western eocapactea Mouse
(Clethrionomys occidentalis)
Re ree Mouse
(Phenacomys longicaudus)
California Vole
(Microtus californicus) x xX
(Meadow Mouse
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)
Norway Ra
(Rattus norvegicus) ¥,4
House Mouse
(Mus musculus)
Pacific Jumping Mouse
(Zapus trinotus)
(Z. t. orarious)
--Whales and Dolphins are not included in this listing
175
MMALS OF SONOMA COUNTY (CONT*D
se r Likely to be
‘Animals, tracks or sign in or near
Name = Sept 197ose . Easement
Coyote See note l.
(Canis latrans)
Gray Fox Xx
ee cineroargenteus)
Blac ear
(Ursus americanus)
Ringtail
(Bassariscus astutus)
Raccoon
(Procyon lotor)
Ermine
(Mustela erminea streatori)
Long-tailed Weasel
(Mustela frenata)
Mink
(Mustela vison)
Badger
(Taxidea taxus) He
Western spotted Skunk
(Spilogale eee
Stripe
(Mephitis mephitis)
River Otter
(Lutra canadensis)
Mountain bion See note 2.
(Felis concolor)
Bobca
(Lynx rufus) xX
Northern Sea Lion
(Bumeto ias jubata) x3
Steller)
California Sea Lion x3
(Zalophus californicus)
Harbor Seal : 3
(Phoca vitulina) x
Black-tailed Deer
(Mule Deer) (Dama hemionus)
(Odoccileus hemionus) K x
UENCE 2 Pe hs ee
1. One rancher reported that coyotes had been very common
many years ago, but that they were not present now. Some
very large scat was found by us but not identified as coyote.
2. The same rancher reported a mountain lion several years ago.
3- Possibly at seaward end--Bodega Bay.
APPENDIX J
VISITOR-ATTRACTING FEATURES OF THE RUNNING FENCE and THEIR LOCATIONS.
POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION POINTS.
As noted in the Text (Visual/Aesthetic Impacts), the indirect
visual impacts of the Running Fence as an "'attractive'' object are
probably more important then the direct impacts. This Appendix
presents a description of the Fence route and its "attractive"
elements, in some detail, with an assessment of their implications.
Quantitative aspects of traffic impacts are treated in the text
(Section II. A. 8--Traffic/Circulation/Parking) and in Appendix kK.
The Running Fence project will have three stages:
e Construction
e Viewing (during two weeks in September 1976*)
6 Removal
The construction and removal stages will not cause sizable
adverse impact from visitors, since the placing of poles and cables
by men and equipment (especially from a distance) ought not to be
much more attractive to viewers than the digging of wells, the
building of water supply ponds, or the loading of hay--usual activities
on Sonoma County farm and dairy land.
However, the visitor impact will, most decidedly, be during the
viewing stage--a maximum of two weeks in September 1976.
During the viewing stage, visitors from the San Francisco Bay
Area and beyond are expected. As many as 30,000 people, or 10,000
cars (three persons per car) could be expected on the peak
weekend day (fewer on weekdays).* Because there are no specified
stopping or parking areas provided for the viewers, the Fence will
be seen mainly from autos moving along the country roads that are
closest to the Fence--and from Highway 101. Therefore, congestion
(stopping and starting) and traffic backup can be expected, at
least during peak viewing periods (see Traffic/Circulation/Parking
Section and Appendix K).
*See Traffic/Circulation/Parking section in text, and
Appendix kK.
177
178
As the Running Fence "runs" in an east-west direction, visitors
can view it while driving west, and again while returning east, or
vice versa (a round trip of about 45 miles). The route from the east
would be via the following roads (see Figures J-1, J-2, and 6*),
e Highway 101
© Old Redwood Highway
e Railroad Avenue
e Stony Point Road
e Meacham Road
e Pepper Road
@ Walker Road
e Petaluma/Valley Ford Road
® Highway 1
8 Franklin School Road
e Marsh Road
The relationships among view of the Fence, existence (or lack)
of place to stop cars (along public right of way), and potential
traffic hazard have been studied in the following detail* (see
Figure J-3 for graphic summary):
I. East to West.
The main visual introduction to the east end of the Running
Fence route is via the "north-south'' auto movement on Highway 101.
Travelers in both directions on Highway 101 have their first views
of the Fence from some distance, so panic stops would be likely only
if preceding drivers slow down considerably to view the Fence.
"Northbound" viewers, at first glimpse of the Fence on Meacham Hill
or with prior knowledge of the Fence route, may exit:
*Figure 6 appears in Traffic/Circulation/Parking in text, and in
Appendix K.
+Notated during normal traffic on summer weekend days, July 26,
1975 and August 3, 1975. Abnormal traffic will change movement of
traffic and may make any stopping hazardous.
Jenner
rl . (ip ® Goes
)
: (12)
oN Sebastopol
2)
\ e
are
dM rae
ae =
Bel, FENC
COAST
STATE i Petaluma e @
BEACHES We
eA
=
A A Novato ®
ES | ! =O)
w
J
N) LS
Wg
=a
hs gy)
ql EEN
ES F SS % IN San Rafael e sx
POINT REYES A: d
NATIONAL SEASHORE
SM
Pen
5 MILES
FIGURE J-1 U.S. AND STATE ROUTES, AND
179 COASTAL RECREATION AREAS
Tien
2 OM 8A ow
Bm Pills % etl
\ #8 aeiten <I.
ee
vel ’
a Bd a Ch
me" 9 wn Fine “F
iby tate’
ih Fhiey oe! ii
1s fe } a rain ‘
-
Pi
n ee
in’
nee
ba
in cheat ona
‘ €
rsvouls 2 rw aed ways
Se ‘, ;
pis © ; 7 ‘
{
"tel be |
f
7 ’
F & |
F es i =
bs . a a
q i* ry
¢ a ol
E at
aan < 77
; 7 wie os
4 j i ’ : 5
ie et af ; , J
> ‘s pal \ 4 e oy
ay \¢ | Z* © 7 c
ae 5 @ , “ Ge
hee ey a . ie
: > a >
era * re —? -F id -
@ Eo :
]
=.
aaa
oe
A
-“4
:
i ' 7
‘
‘Si
6,
*
¢ @
\) eer
; .
' -%
t f i
= >
=
i ’
a
5 s 4
. . Ja say |
7 a j
ae s
: pom gl ee,
' I “a vo
; ' :
' ' we uy, ‘
epee
ed
. < a_i) ¢
i eee
e-*, ht 7
~ al
= > ~ rn
he . ta f ie
At Le | * Wty lea
7 =f, ‘i 2 ie a
i 7. : a, ae ie ihe Vm
Vas p ¢ " s ' ' 4 i Ye 1 wes é
7 Fo", + v a la i } ff oe
ve ' " =: : \
ia > | : — a ; A . ea -
i 4 a : -* >. i <x
A eel oe it Ate
as. 6 ; Tt os a
ys 7 f . a a= , . on 2 - a’
t 1.) a “ .
die’, a * i} ‘i
é ine ‘ ’
J Tate ’ 4 r - ; ;
prs oa i yo a . — <-
® co x : a et
FIGURE J-2 meee@e= Running Fence
Road Type < °
1 Four-lane freeway
Two-lane roads with centerline
stripe and shoulder delineated
by edge stripe
oR
nN
SS S )
VARs
NY
J
NW
i
eg == 7 AN
wo
Two-Tane roads with centerline
stripe but without shoulder
M
‘
SRS PL
~y
a A Dy Ce
TENTATIVE LOCATIONS 7 W Ne
SUBJECT TO LAND OWNER ~“ 7@ WH
AND/OR COUNTY APPROVAL ‘ \ Yi
CE SEE Na TD). Ae
x
182
0
eel
REFER TO FIGURE 3
CIRCULATION
CHARACTERISTICS
FIGURE J-2
2000°
FOR BASIC LEGEND
183
i
er
iY?
Ze
SP
BN /
Hi “
: os
uy
fl
eT
uN
Gate Type
Type con't.
Pre-existing interior gate
Existing interior gate donated
by Running Fence Corporation
=
id
ipe nor shoulder
Two-lane roads with neither
centerline str
One-lane road
\
NY
rte
ER
Fae uit
a 7 tke
Wao Se Ban se
rn mn ide ai Pini
non AT ew aalheed
“iL is $e) iat
n
on
Te
r i n ont on8 ,
: ~omt ea leer ,
al
FIGURE J-3
fe ROSE SHH
WAU ANS
acces$
ee QS
Mw SON
186
memQee= Running Fence
Be Jiewpoint
*& Point of hazard
MMMM Ss Limited access areas
;
qi te I
> \ —*Vowwenks__
S 9 :
ia ~h
ma 5 aa u
? =~
1) &
<>
0 2000°
betel
REFER TO FIGURE 3
FOR BASIC LEGEND
1 Gee SAN Tee) KOSS Sat
I Sg LPC,
ed @ ;
PAWNS PEIN)
Na
J ac
J
é
< a
ara
SR SA
ges HS
Rp % i é NG z
COREE
es or Ae
WES «fh
FIGURE J-3 FENCE VIEWS AND
TRAFFIC HAZARDS
LEN
\
Ts
b af
Mi \
Pe
pea ep.
i
Ss. ergy ‘ 7y
LORRI)
e Onto Old Redwood Highway southbound, then to Stony Point
Road northwestbound, parallel to the freeway and to the Fence;
@ Onto Railroad Avenue (where Fence breaks at freeway),
which runs under freeway bridge and connects with Stony Point Road;
e Onto West Sierra Avenue, which also connects with Stony
Point Road (Southbound) for return to Fence route.*
For traffic moving "south" on 101, the only turnoff after view-
ing the Running Fence is at Old Redwood Highway (southbound) and then
onto Stony Point Road heading northwest. Southbound Highway 101
viewers with prior knowledge of the Fence route may also exit at
Gravenstein Highway, for connection with Stony Point Road. South-
moving traffic on 101 has access to a truck stop providing a good
view of the Fence, while presenting a real hazard to traffic due to
congestion. **
The Fence is not visible from Old Redwood Highway, east of the
freeway, except by concentrated exploring along short roads leading
from Old Redwood Highway. There is a route from Old Redwood Highway
to Stony Point Road via Railroad Avenue, crossing under Highway 101.
Along Stony Point Road, there is ample shoulder area for autos
to stop for viewing and for photographing the Fence (a probable
desire of numerous viewers) .*
North of Denman Road, Stony Point Road has a wide shoulder
that would provide space for up to about 20 cars, for viewing the
Fence on Meacham Hill.
Pepper Road at Stony Point Road provides a return to Highway 101
for southbound traffic only. North of this point, there is no
stopping till Jewett Road (which is out of view of the Fence).. Further
north, at the PG & E Cotati Substation, there is room for up to about
10 cars, with view of the Fence from both sides of Stony Point Road.
The Fence route crosses the road (the Fence breaks) near this point
at a low point on the route.
From Stony Point Road, Fence viewers will turn south onto Meacham
Road and run roughly parallel to the Fence until the Fence route
*Also Gravenstein Highway interchange further north, connecting
with Stony Point Road.
**Recommended to be closed during Fence viewing stage(especially
during weekend) --Captain Eric Denton, Commander California Highway
Patrol, Santa Rosa area, Telephone Communication, August 20, 1975.
*Statements in this EIR about space along shoulders merely
indicate that there is a physical capability for stopping. It is
not certain that this will be permitted. In general, such stopping
is permitted when there is enough shoulder width for the auto to be
entirely clear of the roadway. However, motorists must move on when’ 189
so directed by traffic controllers (Lt. Robert Greer, Santa Rosa
Area Office, California Highway Patrol, Telephone Communication,
October 175-1975:
crosses Meacham Road, just north of Pepper Road, near Stemple Creek
(a low point in the route). Near Stony Point Road, Meacham Road
has shoulders to accommodate up to about 10 cars where there is a
good view.
There are additional shoulders on both sides of Meacham, till the
entrance to the dump.* At the top of the rise at the driveway of
388 Meacham, there is a Clear view of the Fence, but no place to stop
cars on the right of way. This presents a conflict with the drive-
way entrance and with road traffic. Further on, Hammel Road (not
a through road) offers a stopping place to see the Fence, but turning
around on Hammel presents a traffic-jam potential.
At the intersection of Pepper Road and Walker Road, up to about
25 cars can-be accommodated along the shoulder, for stopping, viewing,
and photographing. Various single-car spaces are available at the
edge of the road and at stream culverts, allowing for emergency and
viewing stops.
At the intersection of Walker Road and Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road, about 5 cars can be accommodated to view the Fence at a distance,
for a length of 1/4 to 1/2 mile. About 1/4 mile beyond this inter-
section, there is another pull-out for about 5 cars, with a clear view
straight ahead to the Fence. The view at the Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road break in the Fence is unobstructed, and a potential distraction to
motorists.
The view south from Roblar Road, which accommodates about 3 cars,
is also unobstructed. Once again, turning around presents a traffic
hazard. The community of Bloomfield and Bloomfield Road view the
Fence directly to the south, but there is very little space to stop
a car for viewing or photographing. Within Bloomfield but out of
Sight of the Fence there is a vacant lot suitable for parking
(50' x 100' +) at Sutton and Bloomfield; however, its use is deter-
mined, of course, by its owner.
The Fence runs parallel to, and on the north side of, Petaluma/
Valley Ford Road, on private property, just beyond Carroll Road**
(not a through road, where traffic would interfere with residents'
activities and should be discouraged). About 20 cars can be tempo-
rarily accommodated on the northern shoulder of Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road for viewing and photographing--the only opportunity to see the
Fence at Close range from a public right of way (unless Estero Road
in Marin County is permitted to be part of the Fence route and public
access is allowed). At this point, assistance may be needed to aid
traffic flow and to discourage trespassing. *
The Fence can be viewed straight-on by viewers facing north on
Highway 1.**Just before one reaches the relatively flat valley of the
*Dump traffic is from 7 AM to 4 PM, including Saturdays and
Sundays .
**Also known as Cooper-Kirkland Road.
190 ‘According to the applicant's plans, monitors will be stationed
at such points to discourage trespassing and off-duty Sheriff's
deputies will assist in traffic movement.
**This would actually be the first view for those approaching
from the south on Highway 1 and then taking the West-to-east route.
Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, there is a hill on Highway 1 to the south
from which about five miles of Fence can be seen; about 50 cars can
be temporarily accommodated at this point. The Fence follows the
ridges to the north behind eucalyptus trees, then descends upon the
town of Valley Ford where the Fence route crosses (breaks at)
Petaluma/Valley Ford Road in the midst of commercial and social
activities, yet staying only on private property. It is near here
that private parking and portable toilet facilities and litter con-
tainers* could be most needed and most easily reached by the public--
where commercial services are available. Valley Ford presently can
absorb some parking (in private commercial parking spaces), but
beyond about 20-30 cars, traffic would be obstructed.
The Fence crosses into Marin County at Americano Creek, just
southeast of Valley Ford, and can be viewed by southbound viewers
along Franklin School Road, at which the Fence breaks on its way to
the coast and into the shallow waters of the Pacific Ocean. The
coastal portion of the Fence route is on private property, generally
remote from public roads and access, and therefore, not viewable by
auto** or by casual hiker except from long distances (Bodega Harbor
or Tomales Bluff) or from private property (Dillon Beach). However,
the Fence's entry into the ocean will be viewable from airplanes
(probably from local airports) and from boats (from Bodega Harbor
and Tomales Bay).
2. West to East.
For the traveler approaching from the west toward Valley Ford,
the Fence can first be seen from the Valley Ford Cutoff; there is no
stopping until the space at the vegetable stand on the old right-of-way,
where there is, however, no view of the Fence.
Off Franklin School Road is Estero Road, a two-mile, one-way -
traffic, partially paved (Marin) County-maintained road that leads
to private property and offers views of much of the Fence (as pro-
posed) from a long distance, looking east at and beyond Valley Ford.
However, it presents traffic, fire, and trespassing hazards. An
alternative Fence route, proposed by the applicant. is to use
the public right-of-way of Estero Road to connect with the
currently proposed route on the private properties of Pellascio and
Compadres de San Antonio at the coast. Although Estero Road serves
only a few ownerships, so that normal traffic is limited, the proximity
of the 18' nylon and metal Fence adjacent to interesting, abandoned,
*Litter should be collected during the viewing phase for health
and aesthetic reasons.
**Estero Road iscounty-maintained for a portion of its length; it
affords some views of the Fence on its originally proposed (GAVER property)
alignment. However, the road supports only one-way traffic. Its use by 9]
viewers would probably be discouraged. On the alternate Fence alignment
along Estero Road, viewer control would probably be even more important.
192
and dilapidated farm buildings (although potentially attractive to
photographers) would increase traffic, fire, and trespassing hazards.
Therefore, Estero Road should be closed to general traffic or its use
should at least be discouraged in any event, but especially if the
Fence route is realigned to the Estero Road right of way.
At Marsh Road, the Fence route crosses the road, creating an
attraction where only a few cars can be accommodated. Therefore,
a potential traffic hazard exists unless traffic is kept moving.
Traffic should be kept moving on Franklin School Road, Middle Road
(Slaughter House Road), and various other roads, as well as Marsh
Road. On Middle Road, there is a small shoulder/pull-off with an
unobstructed view to the Fence on a ridge to the north.
On Petaluma/Valley Ford Road near Carroll Road, where the Fence
runs parallel and close to the east-west road, there is no parking or
stopping space on the right (south) side except for one car space
over a culvert. Traffic movement may need aid here.*
The Running Fence route crosses Petaluma/Valley Ford Road at
the joining of Gericke (Jones) Road, near Americano Creek, a low point.
West of Bloomfield, going east, is an unobstructed view of the
Fence, at a limited space for car stopping, which makes this area
potentially dangerous. Along the St. Anthony Farms property, there
is also space forup to 10 cars along the right of way; these can take
advantage of the view encountered there. There is also space for up
to 4 cars further east. The shoulder is continuous (providing for
more cars) past Roblar Road, where it ends as the view also ends
(before bridge culvert) near the Raven property.
The Fence route crosses Carmody (Smith) Road about 300 yards
south of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road and continues behind farm struc-
tures.
In front of the Del Curto property is a large, apparently safe
pull-out about 300' long, where the Fence view is fairly clear. Further
east, the Fence crosses Petaluma/Valley Ford Road from the McGaughey
property onto the Richter property. The Fence view is unobstructed.
In addition, the shoulder of this road, separated from the main road-
way by a white line, can accommodate cars for 1/8-1/4 mile. Motorists
will lose sight of the Fence as it goes behind the Iverson property
hills and trees, and then onto the Scott property where there is a
clear view of the Fence at a distance from the road; the same shoulder
is available for stopping cars.
*By off-duty Sheriff's deputies (use of off-duty Sheriff's deputies
or monitors will vary with time: day or night, weekend or weekday).
The road system turns away from the Fence route on Walker Road.
Near the intersection of the latter with Petaluma/Valley Ford Road,
there is a clear view to the distant Fence, but it is an unsafe
place to stop. Just before Petaluma/Valley Ford Road narrows a bit
further on, there is a place for several cars (up to 5) to stop,
just before reaching the line of eucalyptus trees* which parallel
Walker Road. At the rise and the turn to left onto Walker Road,
there is a view and a place for one car, after which traffic should
keep moving.
At the entrance to the Tresch property on Walker Road is
a clear view to the Fence at a distance of about 3/4 mile for a span
of about one mile, and the road shoulder can accommodate about 10 cars.
Just beyond is a culvert providing space for one car on each side of
the road for a view of the Fence, partially blocked by willow trees
in the stream.
The driveway of the Button property, opposite the Valena drive-
way and adjacent to the Tresch property, is a stop for one car with a
clear Fence view, but in conflict with the driveway, and therefore,
with the use of private property. Beyond this point (further east)
there is no place to stop for some distance. At the top of the knoll,
there is a panoramic view of the Fence (looking back about a mile);
however, without stopping space, this view presents a real traffic
hazard. At the top of the hill, there is some view to the left and
back with pull-outs for one car on each side of the road adjacent to
the Brian property, and one more car space beyond the near eucalyptus
trees. Where eucalyptus trees abut the road, there is shade--a temp-
tation for stopping during the heat of late summer, but this is
hazardous due to the lack of a place to stop.
After the area of the eucalyptus trees, there is a partially
obstructed view but there is no stopping place till the end of Walker
Road (up to 3 cars). Just beyond Walker Road on Pepper (eastbound)
there is ample shoulder for stopping, about 1/4 mile, accommodating
up to approximately 40 cars and providing a view of the Fence at a
distance of 3/4 to 1 mile. Along much of Pepper (between Walker and Meacham
Roads)there is a clear Fence view at a distance of about 1/2 mile
for a span of about 1/2 mile. A shoulder that may permit stopping
runs alongside the road to the point where the view disappears.
On Pepper Road, one car space at the culvert allows an unobstructed
view of the Fence for a short distance, and one potentially hazardous space
opposite the Aycock property also permits viewing. Opposite the
Volkert driveway entrance is space for three cars on the shoulder
before culvert. Opposite the Mattos property is a viewpoint for the
Fence 1/4 mile away for length of about 1/4 mile.
*On which several turkey vultures were observed on one occasion. 493
194
Near the intersection of Pepper and Meacham is an area of
shade during part of the day from eucalyptus trees along the road.
Stopping here is a temptation during the heat of late summer,* but
lack of space may make this a traffic hazard. This point presents
a clear view of Fence less that 1/4 mile distant for a length of
1/4 mile. Closer to the intersection is pull-out space for up to
about 10 cars.
Southbound traffic may continue on Pepper Road to Highway 101
to return to the center of the Bay Area. Although distant from
the Fence, this part of Pepper Road presents some clear views of it.
After the turn onto Meacham from Pepper, there is space for
up to about 6 cars on shoulders with an unobstructed view. Due to
lack of space and the traffic hazard beyond (driveways) there should
be no stopping till the culvert beyond the first farmhouses. The
Fence route crosses the road here, adding attraction and thus hazard.
The traffic should be kept moving till just before the road to the
dump ** at a cattle-loading area with space for about 3 cars. There
is no view ahead here, but a clear view behind in the distance.
Opposite the dump on Meacham Road* is space for up to approxi-
mately 20 cars--to the top of the hill where pull-out space is very
good. The view is panoramic and includes three different sections,
each for about 1/4 mile distance, plus Meacham Hill about 2 miles
away.
Everett Road in the Happy Acres subdivision has a clear view
of the Fence nearby and a panoramic view of the Fence on Meacham Hill.
However, traffic should be controlled away from the houses and the
unimproved roads of the subdivision.
Approaching Stony Point Road, Meacham Road has ample shoulder
all the way until just before the corner of Stony Point Road. The
view is clear for a long distance, though semi-obstructed.t*
*Heat and lack of shade (easterly part of route) or fog and wind
(westerly part of route) and rise in gasoline prices may discourage
some motorists from visiting and viewing the Fence. Likewise, TV
coverage may either encourage or discourage viewing attendance. Many
visitors may be satisfied with viewing only a small portion of the
Running Fence rather than viewing the whole length in detail from two
directions; this could relieve some potential congestion.
**Generating traffic from 7 AM to 4 PM daily including Sunday.
*Maximum speed limit is 40 mph.
*+Although there is road construction in progress in 1975 on
Stony Point Road and on Railroad Avenue (and Bloomfield Bridge on
the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road), it is due to be completed by 1976.
On Stony Point Road, about 1/4 mile from Meacham Road, the
Running Fence crosses the road near the PG§&E Cotati Substation and
runs uphill perpendicular to the road. There is space for about
10 cars with some view, and about 20 cars with no view, both with
some hazard.* A culvert bridge over a gully (low point) again pro-
vides space for one car to stop.
At one half the distance from Meacham Road to Railroad Avenue
is a clear view to Meacham Hill and the Fence. In the section of
Stony Point Road facing Railroad Avenue, 6-8 cars can pull out to view
the Fence in Meacham Hill. Space continues more or less to the
corner of Railroad Avenue. The view is partially unobstructed.
There is some space for stopping at Jewett Road, but it is
hazardous, and there is some stopping space at driveway entrances,
but this too is hazardous and also a conflict with use of private
property, and so should be discouraged.
Stony Point Road can lead to Highway 101 southbound via the
Pepper Road on-ramp.
A simplified graphic summary of the above detailed information
can be found on the foldout map, Figure J-3, which includes view angles
and potential hazards along the Running Fence route.
Mitigation
Viewers should be kept off private property and discouraged
from public roads that present hazards: (1) roads that are not
through-roads; (2) too-narrow roads; (3) roads without turn or
easy connection to other roads Monitors and off-duty Sheriff's deputies
will be hired by the applicant to protect private property and to
guide traffic flow** The applicant does not propose to provide
parking areas. Therefore, in general, traffic should be kept moving
smoothly. For those points where views of the Running Fence are
especially clear or panoramic, the tendency of the curious (especially
photographers) would be to stop. If there is no place to stop, a potential
hazard exists and traffic should be kept moving. Sheriff's deputies
will guide traffic while monitors (college students and others) will
*Stony Point Road has a record of accidents, especially during 195
nighttime (1973).
**Only uniformed police officers can control traffic on public
roads per se.
196
guard private property using two-way communication for assistance.
The number of persons controlling traffic and protecting private
property will be determined on the basis of need (100 anticipated on
8-hour shifts). Need will vary with time: (1) weekday vs. weekend
day; (2) day vs. night.
Road construction and maintenance activities should not be
scheduled during the viewing period. All planned Sonoma County
roadwork in the Fence route area will be completed by September 1976
(Sonoma County Public Works Department, letter of August 26, 1975
to ESA), most of it in calendar 1975.
If private parking is provided by private landowners* (separate
from any part of the applicant's proposal or plan), guidance should
be received in advance by the landowner from public authorities**
in order not to create more traffic problems because of egress and
ingress conflict on roads.
If traffic becomes too congested for stopping for viewing and
photographing (see Traffic/Circulation/Parking Section), stopping,
except for emergencies , could be prohibited; even whole roads could
be closed to visitors.*” If the viewing/stopping hazard becomes
dangerous to public safety, even after employment of the suggested
mitigation measures (here and in the Traffic/Circulation/Parking
Section), the ultimate mitigation measure can be employed: remove
the Fence panels (especially prior to the first weekend) before the
end of the viewing period. The applicant has agreed to this condition
in advance; the decision will be made by Captain Denton.
*Some landowners have stated interest in providing parking on
their land.
**Captain Eric Denton, Commander, California State Highway Patrol,
Santa Rose Area; Sonoma County Traffic Engineer; Sonoma County
Sheriff's Office.
*Road closing, with the exception of the Estero Road situation,
may be unworkable. The applicant has stated that he will not accept
road closures (exception of Estero Road) as part of the project,
because of their additional impacts. Instead, he accepts removal of
the panels as the ultimate mitigation measure.
Appendix k*
Traffic/Circulation/Parking Details and Background
Setting**
Beginning at the project's east end, the principal traffic-way
for viewing the Running Fence will be via U.S. 101 (Freeway), West
Railroad Avenue, Stony Point Road, Meacham Road, Pepper Road, Walker
Road, Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, Franklin School Road, and Estero
Road near the project's west end [See Figures J-1 and J-2 (Appendix J)
and 6 (Section II.A.8 and Appendix K)]. To reach these roads, most
traffic will approach from the south on the Freeway (Route 101),
exiting at one of three interchanges: the Old Redwood Highway inter-
change at Denman Flat and then along Stony Point Road; Railroad
Avenue; or Roblar/West Sierra Avenue and Stony Point Road. The
return to the freeway may be by these same routes except that,
instead of using Railroad Avenue, traffic must use an on-ramp at
Pepper Road to the south of Railroad Avenue (see Figures J-2 and 6).
From the north, those who leave the freeway will use the Gravenstein
Highway (Route 116) ramps and then Old Redwood Highway (Railroad
Avenue) or Stony Point Road. Those southbound motorists who first
decide to leave the freeway after noticing the Fence would use the
Denman Flat Interchange. Those who do not leave the freeway may
view parts of the Fence from the freeway itself.
Twenty-four hour weekday traffic counts by Caltranst and Sonoma
Countytt, available at the start of this EIR project, are as
follows:
Count
Freeway (U.S. 101) 36,000 to 52,000+
State Highway Route 1 2,200 to 3,400t
Petaluma/Valley Ford Road 700 to 3,400+tt
Stony Point Road 1,500++
Pepper Road 240+t+
West Railroad Avenue 267+t
*This Appendix is based on the calculations and judgment of
Donald K. Goodrich, Transportation and Traffic Engineer (Consultant
to ESA), except where other contributors are specifically identified.
**The environmental setting can be presented only if the poten-
tially involved traffic network is first delineated.
+1973 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System,
by Caltrans. 197
+tSonoma County Traffic Department, 1973-July 1975.
= —_—
- vuey
“vv “Vv
dL Lqowojny 33e}3S eLUUOJL]Le) BYX JO
uotsstuwuad Aq padnpoudeu dew d1seg
2
“Kempeou payediput Bulrzij14n p AC
SUOJLSLA BOUeT JO % SazeILpUT « eS ane
ein sauWwe 0
“1 Anu) <>
‘
j Nez \ z
: SaTvWol {- i
Se @ (ov3a NoTIIA
aay ebapog ee Yoox “py LOoyss UL{yUe4
re
pioj Aal len
: /
\3
‘= f es 2, -
é "4,
oe) wes oo
“SAY pROULLeY “MOY y a es ee
2
=
¢
“SAY RPQUSUS “Oe a as GuO4 AZTIWA
s MO ee 2 "Py 4B LGOY 17 40, Ava v93008
%
—<
Pe See oe
eee 3 ud LYSNHOY : "PY JULOg Au0IS : Senet
s - Sr cotele Ea
2 Aemssaudx Je AUUO =] oN a =
ro 4 7 d a Y xy 9E ) ; 3h _ Save
ZOOS Nahe 062) AR eee ee
3 a fe 3 5 >:
S 3 30 “y <=
ay
:2}U9p1939
eel *
Ca
AAU ay
oor 17
i" 5a4a2yy Swe
TAVIMTWM cy ahs
uojei
‘
“>
r —— -—_——__
TS Ws 01 shes wo
g JAQWD Ne InCd g
‘os
Bless os 77
: Saiisene poomurou
“1 YY se
‘© NNH IMA Sean
wa
i)
Ti ae, ou
Traffic counts on the principal traffic-way and on nearby roadways
were taken in August and September 1975 by the Sonoma County Depart-
ment of Public Works, in order to anticipate normal traffic volumes
in September 1976, when the Fence will be in place. The counts were
taken at the following locations*; at the time of preparation of this
Draft EIR, data for the segments marked ''**'"' were available. They
are summarized in Table K-1.
Stony Point Road, south of Meacham Road
Railroad Avenue, east of Route 101
Meacham Road, east of Pepper Road
Pepper Road, east of Walker Road
Walker Road, east of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road**
Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road**
Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Franklin School Road
(Hwy 1 segment )**
Franklin School Road, north (east) of Estero Road**
Bodega Avenue (Tomales Road), west of Pepper Road**
Petaluma/Valley Ford Road (Bodega Avenue), east of Pepper Road
Highway 1, just south of Petaluma/Valley Ford Road**
From all these counts and from personal observations, it appears
that most project-area roads currently operate well below capacity.
Exceptions may be certain segments of the freeway and of Route 1
on Sundays, particularly in the summer months.
The principal traffic-way for viewing the Fence is composed
of five basic road types (See Figure J-2, Appendix J):
1. Four-lane freeway
2. Two-lane roads with centerline stripe and shoulder
delineated by edge stripe
3. Two-lane roads with centerline stripe but without
shoulder
4. Two-lane roads with neither centerline stripe nor shoulder
5. One-lane road
A review of accident records furnished by Sonoma County indi-
cates an unusually high percentage of nighttime accidents on Stony
Point Road in 1973, showing a possible need for after-dark road
delineation. However, the pattern did not recur in 1974.+
*U.S. highways may not be counted by local jurisdictions.
**Count data available at time of preparation of this Draft EIR.
+Sonoma County Traffic Department Accident Reports for 1973 and 1974.
199
TABLE K-1
TRAFFIC COUNTS, AUGUST 30 - SEPTEMBER 22, 1975*
(SONOMA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT)
Weekda Weekend or Holida
Walker Road, East of
Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road 77-103 95-139 13-19
Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road, East of Jones
(Gericke) Road 1417-2027] 132-181
2859**-3451** 264**-357**
Highway 1, North of
Bridge over Estero
Americano (Just South
of Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road ) 696-866 1224-1263 144-154
Petaluma/Valley Ford
Road, East of Franklin
School Road (Highway 1
Segment in Valley Ford) | 1774-2325] 187-216 3013-3933 293-457
Franklin School Road,
East of Estero Road 184-205 344 5]
Bodega Avenue, West
of Pepper Road (Short
Segment of Petaluma/
Valley Ford Road at
Two Rock Ranch) 4213-5190) 432-470 6737** -7363**| 652**-746**
*Ranges indicated, where several days' counts were made.
**Labor Day Weekend.
200
Impact
1) Expected Visitors.*
To arrive at an estimate of the size of the crowd that will be
attracted by the Fence the history of special events in Northern
California and at Christo's previous showings was investigated.
The results appear below:
Approximate
SPECIAL EVENT Daily Visitation**
(persons )
(Bay Area/California)
Sonoma Fair 40 ,000
Sears Point Raceway 4,000
Napa Wine Festival 10,000
Composite of all West Marin
Recreation Areas 50 ,000
Sonoma-Marin Fair 15,000
Napa Area Winery 1,500
Calaveras District Fair
(Frog Jumping) 12,000
Santa Rosa Art Fair 1,000
Christo's Showing
Sydney, Australia 10,000
Kassel, Germany + 8,000
Rifle, Colorado 10,000
*Traffic problems are not expected during construction and
removal of the Fence. The limited number of construction vehicles
will make little use of the roadways, except for arrival and departure
each day. As noted in Appendix J, little visitor traffic is expected
during construction and removal.
** Information obtained by ESA from special-event sponsors.
Attendance data for the Renaissance Pleasure Faire (Black Point
area of Marin County) are not available. Faire staff members state
that they are considered confidential information. Since the Faire
runs through the month of September, there is a potential traffic
conflict between Fence and Faire traffic, particularly on Highway 101
south of Highway 37.
+An exhibition with 60 other artists.
201
202
A preliminary estimate of the visitor demand generated by the
Running Fence has been made on the basis of crowd data from previous
events, the distance of the Fence route from Bay Area population
centers, and the probable sources of Fence visitors. It must be
emphasized that this estimate is a matter of judgment rather than
calculation; the Running Fence will be a unique event, with no real
precedent to serve as a basis for extrapolation from the past.
Factors taken into account in the estimation of numbers of visitors
and the ways in which they will disperse to view the Fence include
the following:
e The Fence will be visible during all daylight hours for its
proposed two-week display period. This distinguishes it
from single-occurrence events, such as sports events or
rock concerts, and makes it more like county fairs and
similar occurrences.
e Unlike extended-duration events that occur at a fixed site,
the Fence will be visible at numerous points from over 40
miles of public roads.
e Although Christo's past projects drew relatively low public
attendance (leading, to the best of our knowledge, to no
unacceptable traffic congestion), the total number of
visitors attracted by the Fence cannot be ascertained with
certainty because of demographic differences between the
Bay Area and the sites of the prior projects.
e@ Many viewers, even among those making a special trip to
view the Fence, may be satisfied with the view they receive
from the main approach routes, Highways 101 and 1, and
therefore will not disperse onto the cross-county traffic-
way .
e Total attendance will depend on publicity to date, parti-
cularly that associated with the environmental review
process, but also that associated with museum and lecture
events involving the applicant. It may depend even more
on the same kinds of publicity in the future.
@ Variation in daily attendance during the two-week display
period will depend on media publicity immediately prior
to and during that period. It is likely that attendance
will be higher on weekends than during the week, and that
it will build up over the two-week period, so that the peak
day will be the second Sunday, all other factors being equal.
The resulting estimate of the total number of visitors on the peak
day (presumably the second Sunday) is expressed in the following
in terms of the probability of occurrence of several levels of
attendance:
VISITOR DEMAND ON PEAK DAY
Probability
of Occurrence
Number (Judgment )
15,000 (5,000 cars)* 60%
30,000 (10,000 cars)* 30%
50,000 (16,700 cars)* 5%
2) Direction of Approach.
Explanation
(probable)
(possible)
(top demand, though only
30,000 may be able to
arrive, due to limitations
of road network)
The origin and directional flow of visitors to the Fence
viewing area can be estimated by comparing data from West Marin
and Sonoma County attractions. The origin of visitors to recrea-
tional areas in western Marin County is tabulated below:
ORIGIN OF VISITORS TO WEST MARIN RECREATIONAL AREAS
Percent of
County Visitors
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin 2
Napa
San Francisco i
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Solano
Sonoma
Other
OonNDODN f&OrFrF A
SONWFHOAHLOONM
to
TOTAL 100.0
Source: Table 4, ''The Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study
Model'' (Area 1 and Area 3 Reports, 1975).
Three visitors per car (estimate for recreational travel).
203
204
Because the Running Fence is almost entirely in Sonoma County, it
can be expected to attract a greater percentage of Sonoma County
residents and a lesser percentage of Marin County residents than
do West Marin recreational sites. Therefore, it is anticipated
that during the viewing period the percentages for Marin and Sonoma
counties will be interchanged (i.e., 21 percent of the Fence viewer
trips will originate in Sonoma County and 5 percent in Marin County).
A license-plate survey conducted for Sonoma county on Route 1
between Doran County Park and Salt Point State Park confirms this
estimate of visitor origins:
Origin of Visitors Percent of Visitor Vehicles
Sonoma County ZS
Rest of Bay Area ay
Rest of California Sil
Out of State 7
Source: Sonoma County General Plan Bulletin
These data indicate that about 80 percent of the Fence visitor vehicles
will approach the viewing area from the south and about 20 percent
will approach from the north.* It is anticipated that the viewers
upon reaching the viewing area will distribute themselves over the
local road network (see Figures J-2 and 6) according to the following
estimate:
Roadway Percent of Visitor Vehicles
West Railroad Avenue 15
Stony Point Road (between Meacham
Road and Route 101) 35
Meacham Road--Pepper Road--Walker
Road--Petaluma/Valley Ford Road 20
Franklin School Road--Whitacker
Bluff Road 1S
Route 1 north of Valley Ford 5
Route 1 south of Valley Ford 15
Route 101 north of Gravenstein
Highway Sse
Route 101 south of Old Redwood
Highway interchange at Denman Flat 55**
Dispersed among other roads 20
*Detailed assumptions about visitor access and viewing routes
appear in Table K-2, following. These were generated by ESA as input
for energy-consumption calculations.
**Visitor traffic on the section of Highway 101 between Gravenstein
Highway and Denman Flat may be as much as 65 percent of the total, de-
pending on visitor decisions on where to exit.
"a0ueT JU} 0} ODSLIUBUY UeS
wouf Ssadde sng asn suabuassed ule 4o %OzZ auinsse (uoLjIas Abuauy) UoLJdwnsuod [any JO SUOLze[NdLeDx
*suoLze,nd ed pue suoLzdwnsse ySq :adunos,
6L°/18°/0° 6L°/18° 000‘ LE oe 2g J1VLS 40 1NO SIWLOL
0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°L 296 L€ 92 08 I wouj unozag
0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°L 0 0 9L LOL SM wouj 4unojzaqg
00°1/0°/0° 00°1/0° 000‘0€ 000‘€ OL aoua4 MaLA
02 FLSLA 39041
a7e7S JO 3NO *49auI0
€£°/L9°/x SEO’: 000‘89L = LEZ VINYOSI1WI SYSHLO IWLOL
0S°/0S*/x 0S°/0S° 008‘ 9EL 006 2SL BLUUOZLLeQ UsBYZNOS
0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°L 00v‘ OE 00t 9/ Aa, LeA utnbeor ues
-O}USWeUDeS
0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°L 069 0€2 € Ayunoy znug ejues
PLuUUOFL Le) *49Y70
0°/00°L 000 ‘8b == LSv SAILNNOD W3YV AVE YSHLO TWLOL
0°/00°L/0° 0°/00°1 129 vol 9 our los
0°/06°/0L° 0°/00°1 ozs‘ LL Ost v9 eue|) eZURS
0°/06°/OL° 0°/00°L 0069 OSL Ov 09}eW URS
0°/08°/02° 0°/00°L O2Z‘ tl 08 8 OOS LouRYy UeS
0°/00°1/0° 0°/00°L Ovb by OL eden
0°/06°/OL* 0°/00°L 802s v8 29 e380) e4qU0)
0°/06°/OL° 0°/00°L 0ve‘s vOl G8 epowe Ly
sol uno) Roy eg 49410
0° /u8*/02" 0/00°L 026‘OL ev 092 —- S8L}UNOD UL4eW pue eWIOUOS
(sa,lw uabuessed) Sa, lu) dluj S4O7LSIA COOOL
Le}O, ssaddy punoy ssad0y /SAOYLSLA
(4Le/ojne/snq) (4Le/ozne)
g a}euuaz Ly yy 97eU92 LY
(u0L}Deus) BpoW ssaddy
ONIMJIA ONY SS3DDV YOLISIA--SNOITLdWNSSV
+2-% J1aVl
205
206
Hourly traffic variations in general can be expected to resemble
those of summer Sunday recreational travel, e.g., arrivals starting
in mid-morning and continuing until about 3 PM. Similar patterns
can be expected on weekdays and weekend days, with the latter reach-
ing a higher level. The weekend to weekday variation will generally
follow the two-to-one ratio observed for visitors to the Sonoma
County Fair and Sonoma County wineries.
While the vast majority of Fence viewers will view the Fence
from land vehicles, chiefly autos, some viewers may approach the
Fence route by air and water. Visitor arrival by boat to see the
coastal area is not expected to be heavy. The North Coast Harbor
Study for the Army Corps of Engineers (by JHK §& Associates) showed
that few recreational boaters are willing to leave the shelter of
San Francisco Bay and brave the long unsheltered route to Bodega
Bay.
3) Roadway Capacity.
Roadways near the Fence route have a limited amount of capacity
available to absorb new traffic generated by Fence viewers. The
traffic impact of the viewing period will depend upon the amount of
vehicle usage relative to the capacities of specific roadways.
Vehicle usage is expected to vary from hour to hour and day to day.
Table K-3 illustrates the relationship between level of service
(or driving ease) and hourly traffic volumes (capacities) for two-
lane rural roads. The Table is appropriate for the two-lane roads
in the project area during normal, non-Fence periods. However, the
actual capacity under the conditions anticipated during the viewing
period may be one-half of these.* The narrower Type 3 and 4 road-
ways are assigned the same traffic capacity as the wider Type 2
(Setting Section) because parking would generally be prohibited
from the former and allowed along the Type 2 roadway. Route 101
has been estimated by CALTRANS to have a one-way peak hour capacity
of 3,000 vehicles on a viewing day.*
Too much traffic compared to road capacity (i.e., Level of
Service E to F) could lead to stop-and-go flow, traffic backups onto
the freeway, cars running out of gasoline, boiling radiators, traffic
accidents, and entrapment of emergency vehicles. Therefore, it is
necessary to assess the possibility of network capacity overload
under the peak visitor conditions estimated above.
*Letter to Mr. George Kovatch, Sonoma County, from Mr. L.
Newman, CALTRANS, February 5, 1975.
TABLE k-3
LEVEL OF SERVICE, TWO-LANE RURAL ROAD
Hourly 2-way Level of
Volume Service Operating Characteristics
400 A Ideal flow
900 B Free flow
1,400 C Stable flow; some car-following;
average speed 30 mph; a common service
level for design
1,700 D Approaching unstable flow; average
speed, 20 mph, greatly restricted due
to car-following
2,000 E Maximum volume attainable, average
speed 10 mph. Level E is not likely
to be attained. Operation may go
directly from D to F
less than F Forced, congested flow with unpredictable
2,000* characteristics. Stop and go, long queues
Source: Adapted from page 308, "A Policy on Design of Urban
Highway and Arterial Streets", American Association
of State Highway Officials
The descriptive operating characteristics apply to other road
types, including freeways. However, the associated traffic volumes
change with road type.
*As traffic demand exceeds 2,000, the resulting turbulence
reduces flow to less than 2,000.
207
208
4) Assessment of Possible Capacity Overloads Due to Fence
Visitor Traffic.
Accurate assessment of the potential traffic impacts of the
Running Fence is precluded by a combination of uncertainties,
including those pertaining to the following:
e Maximum likely levels of visitor traffic
e Ratio between peak week-end visitor traffic and week-day
visitor traffic
e Hours when Fence visitor traffic would occur; percent of
daily visitor traffic in the peak (visitor) hour
e Non-visitor ("normal") traffic during the display period
e Visitor-traffic splits on the affected road network
e Actual capacity of individual segments of the affected
road network, under potential traffic conditions during
Fence display
e Variation in capacity among the different road types in
the affected road network
Therefore, the approach taken was to examine several critical
elements of the road network, under a series of assumptions.* The
road elements evaluated were: (a) Highway 101; (b) Walker Road;
(c) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road; and
(d) Highway 1, east of Franklin School Road (in Valley Ford itself).
Stony Point Road and Bodega Avenue. were also investigated, but with
less confidence in the imput data.
The assumptions were as follows:
o Total visitor 'demand" on the peak day (second Sunday) is
10,000 vehicles (the 30% probability figure)
o While the normal weekend/weekday ratio of daily traffic
throughout the road network is about two to one, the ratio
of the peak-visitor-day (second-Sunday) Fence visitor traffic
to the Fence visitor traffic on the first day (weekday) of
display is about four to one. That is, interest will
develop as the display period goes on.
o Visitor-traffic splits throughout the road network are as
estimated earlier in this Appendix.
o Visitor traffic in the peak visitor hour is 15% of daily
visitor traffic. For "normal" traffic, the figure is 10%.
*This examination was performed by ESA staff, after the receipt, on
October 17, 1975, of the tratfic count data summarized in Table K-1.
The resuits confirmed the main conclusions of Donald K. Goodrich,
Consultant to ESA, which had been based on the limited data available
in July, 1975.
e@ In the absence of data on existing weekend traffic on Highway
101, weekday maximum traffic levels can be assumed to apply
(as the setting) on weekends. This is not unreasonable for
a freeway segment that combines business , commute and recrea-
tional traffic.
e@ Highway 101 peak hour capacity in the vicinity on a viewing
day is , as noted above, 3,000 vehicles (one-way), or 6,000 vehicles
(two-way) .
e Capacity of the two-lane local roads during the viewing
period is, as noted above, one-half of the normal capacity,
because visitors will slow down and/or park to view the
Fence.
The approach used in estimating traffic levels of service re-
sulting from the addition of Fence visitor traffic to 'normal" traffic
was as follows:
e The calculation was for the peak (PM) hour on the second
Sunday.
e The resulting peak hour total flow was compared to the above
criteria for capacity. For the two-lane rural roads, the
first comparison was against the flow criteria for Level of
Service C, as reduced by 50% to account for conditions during
viewing.
e@ Once the situation for the peak day (second Sunday) had
been established, the situation on the average weekday could
be assessed. This would be needed for the development of
a contingency plan, to be based on traffic levels experienced
after the fact) during the first weekdays of viewing.
e The initial assumption was that the visitor demand on the
second Sunday would be 10,000 vehicles (the 30% probability
figure).
The results of the evaluation were as follows (the calculated
flows represent normal traffic plus visitor traffic):
a) Highway 101-- The peak-hour second-Sunday one-way flow in
the segment of the freeway between Denman Flat and Gravenstein High-
way would be about 3100 vehicles. This is greater than the capacity
of 3000 stated above. That is, if the visitor demand reached 10,000
cars per day, Highway 101 would reach Level ot Service F. un
Highway 101 south of Denman Flat, the flow would be slightly lower,
but still above the stated capacity. Since Highway 101 is the
principal access route to the Fence area, its northbound approach
carrying 55 percent of the total visitors and its southbound approach 209
210
carrying 15 percent of the total visitors, it appears to be the con-
trolling element in capacity analysis and in California Highway Patrol
decisions about requesting removal of the Fence. On weekdays, the
freeway capacity would not be reached, whether the assumption used
is a weekend/weekday visitor flow ratio of four to one or of two to
one. On the other hand, if the 30 percent probability assumption of
10,000 visitor vehicles on the second Sunday is conservative, weekday
flows could be high enough to indicate this possibility, while still
remaining below capacity.
b) Walker Road -- This segment of the (viewing) road network
experiences very little traffic normally; however, the road is
twisting and narrow (Type 4). The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way
flow is about 320 vehicles. This is well below the modified (50%
reduction) capacity of 700 (for Level of Service C). Therefore,
congestion should not be a problem, unless large numbers of visitors
try to stop along the shoulders for views (or photos) of the Fence.
Since the flows on the weekdays will be further below capacity,
visitor behavior on those days can foreshadow the potential problems
on the weekends, while not causing serious problems itself.
c) Petaluma/Valley Ford Road, east of Gericke (Jones) Road --
This segment of the (viewing) road network consists of both Type 2
and Type 3 road, but experiences much more traffic normally than does
Walker Road. The peak-hour second-Sunday two-way flow is about 660
vehicles. This is still below the capacity of 700 (for Level of
Serivce C), but close enough so that congestion from parkers or even
those who merely show down to view the Fence may be a problem. Again,
experience on the first weekdays of the viewing period should provide
clues to the levels and the behavior of the expected weekend traffic,
and of their consequences.
d) Highway 1, east of Franklin School Road (within the Town of
Valley Ford -- This segment normally experiences higher traffic flows
than does the Petaluma/Valley Ford Road segment above. The peak-hour
second-Sunday two-way flow is about 680 vehicles. The same considera-
tions as those for Petaluma/Valley Ford Road to the east apply.
Further complications may result from the presence of the commercial
buildings along the road, coupled with the fact that the Running Fence
route crosses this road within the town, providing a further attrac-
tion that may lead visitors to pull over.
e) Stony Point Road, north of Railroad Avenue -- The only
available count for this road is a weekday figure, for the whole
day, of 1500 vehicles. If the normal Sunday traffic is assumed to be
the same, with 10 percent in the peak hour, then the peak-hour
second-Sunday two-way flow (normal traffic plus Fence visitors)
would be about 675 vehicles, still below the Level C capacity of
700 vehicles. However, if the normal Sunday flow is assumed to be
3,000 vehicles, the total peak-hour flow would then be about 825
vehicles, close to the Level of Service D capacity of 850. This
situation could create problems, particularly since perhaps one-
half of the visitors northbound on Stony Point might attempt to
turn left onto Meacham Road. Experience on the first weekdays
would again provide guidance as to what could be expected later,
while unacceptable congestion would probably not exist at the time.
f) Bodega Avenue, west of Pepper Road -- This road segment is
not part of the viewing-road network. However, it may be attractive
as an access or departure road. Its existing Sunday peak-hour flow
is about 750 (two-way), which would be above (worse than) Level of
Service C, if the road were on the view network. Since it is not,
the capacities of Table K-3 apply directly, so that existing Sunday
peak-hour flow is between Levels of Service A and B. Even if as much
as 35 percent of the total visitor flow were to use this approach
(an extremely unlikely prospect), the peak-hour second-Sunday flow
would still be below (better than) Level of Service C.
The main conclusion above is that 10,000 visitor vehicles is
the maximum that can be reasonably accommodated on the road network,
and that the controlling feature is that this level of demand would
cause Highway 101 to go to Level of Service F. Thus, a decision
by the California Highway Patrol to request removal of the Running
Fence could be made on the expectation that such levels would be
reached on the first or second weekends, even if congestion had not
built up to unacceptable levels during the first weekdays. The
dominance of the potential Highway 101 buildup in the analysis and
decision is confirmed by the earlier conclusions of Mr. Goodrich
that a demand of 30,000 visitors (10,000 visitor vehicles) "produces
Service Level 'F' on Highway 101 (remove Fence if over 30,000 antici-
pated)".
Mr. Goodrich had concluded also that, if as many as 35-40 percent
of the visitor vehicles attempted to use the principal viewing traffic-
way between Highways 101 and 1, the controlling road network would
shift away from the freeway, even at somewhat lower flows. This is
a more conservative judgment than the above analysis of individual
segments would indicate. However, it takes into account the
interior road network as a whole; of particular importance is the
effect of left turns at different intersections, depending on whether
the visitor vehicle is going from west to east or from east to west.
Potential problems at specific locations, including those
associated with "'attractive'' stopping places for viewing and/or
photography, are discussed in detail in Appendix J.
211
212
Both analyses indicate, however, that with the expected
gradual buildup of visitor interest there would be time to imple-
ment a series of contingency plans, including the ultimate mitiga-
tion of requiring removal of the Fence. Mr. Goodrich's suggested
contingency plans are presented in the text (Section II A 8,
Traffic/Circulation/Parking) .
APPENDIX L
ARCHAEOLOGY REPORT
CONSULTING AND RESEARCH SERVICES, INC.
August 21, 1975
Dr. Richard Cole
Environmental Science Associates
1291 East Hillsdale Boulevard
Foster City, California
Dear Dr. Cole,
Pursuant to your letter of authorization dated August 18, 1975,
our firm has completed archaeological investigations for the
proposed route of the Christo Running Fence project in Sonoma
and Marin Counties, California. As outlined in our proposal
letter of August 12, 1975, archival and reconnaissance research
tasks were undertaken to determine what impacts the proposed
project would have on archaeological resources. We are herein
reporting to you the results of those investigations.
Our first task, that of archival research, was accomplished by
reviewing records of all archaeological sites which are known
to be located within the vicinity of the proposed project.
Those facilities which possess complete records of this type
and as consulted by ACRS include the California Department of
Parks and Recreation at Sacramento, Sonoma State University
at Rohnert Park, and San Francisco State University at San
Francisco. No known archaeological sites or resources were
shown in these records to be within & mile near the proposed
route of the Christo Running Fence project.
Our second task, that of completing an in-field reconnaissance
of those portions of the Running Fence route which would have a
high probability of containing archaeological resources, was
accomplished by walking over and visually inspecting the ground
surface along those sections of the Running Fence route which
will intersect with and cross over intermittent or permanent
creek or estero courses. Included were the Estero Americano,
Americano Creek, and all intermittent creeks along the Running
Fence route. In addition, ACRS surveyed a number of sections
along the Running Fence route which will traverse hill tops or
ridges. Included were all hill tops and ridges along the
213
20 EVERGREEN AVENUE MILL VALLEY, CA 415 / 388-3175
214
project route from Stony Point Road to the project terminus
at the Pacific Ocean. A corridor with a width of 100 feet
was inspected along those sections of the Running Fence route
which were examined. No indications of archaeological resources
were observed or discovered during the visual surface recon-
naissance efforts.
It would appear, then, that the proposed project would have no
prohibitive impacts upon archaeological resources. All areas
along the Running Fence route which appeared to have a high
probability of containing archaeological resources were subject
to surface examinations as were areas with a more moderate
probability of containing archaeological resources, i.e., the
ridge and hill tops. No archaeological resources which would
be impacted by the proposed project were found to be either
within the records of known sites or in the route sections as
surveyed by ACRS. Additionally, the nature of the project's
construction design, specifically the placement of 3" support-
ing posts and adjoining anchors at 62 foot intervals, would,
even if an archaeological site were encountered, create such
minor impacts as to be virtually negligable.
If you should have any questions about our work, please do
not hesitate to call. Thank you.
Sincerely,
(tase,
Stephen A. Dietz
Principal
SAD :ms
APPENDIX M
OCEAN ENGINEERING
CHRISTO'S RUNNING FENCE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared By
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
17 October, 1975
Project Manager: Physical Oceanographer:
Mr. Raymond L. Anderson Dr. Edward Thronton
Senior Diver:
Mr. Don Heacock
215
216
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Christo, an artist, has proposed the creation of an art work entitled
RUNNING FENCE which will consist of a 26 mile, 20 foot high, nylon fence
supported by steel pylons. RUNNING FENCE will follow a meandering course
through southern Sonoma County terminating in the sea at a point south of the
Sonoma-Marin County line and north of Tomales Bay (Map 1).
RUNNING FENCE is essentially a series of extremely long nylon sheet
hung from a 7/8" steel cable which is suspended between steel stanchions.
It is proposed that the seaward terminus of the fence be suspended from a
cable which will be anchored in the sea. Dimensions and materials specifi-
cations are included in design schema prepared by URS/The Ken R. White
Company .
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The portion of the RUNNING FENCE project that extends from the
beach bluff to the ocean terminus was reviewed with regard to environmental
considerations of the structural design. The dimensions and geometry of
the final design will necessarily be slightly modified from the plans dated
3/21/75 because of the location change, but it is assumed that the basic
design will remain similar. The structural design calculations were checked
and verified as a matter of review.
METHODOLOGY
Three Environmental Research Consultants, Inc. employees (the Project
Manager and two biologist divers), visited the proposed anchorage site on
Vie ee,
Ve
Tr
=
©
PROJECT AREA
September 19, 1975. A subtidal area 2,000 x 700 feet was chosen as a
tentative anchoring area. Preliminary maps of the shore and of subtidal
rocks which reach intertidal height were made and diving strategies were
planned. The location of sampling sites and the transect lines swum by
the divers are indicated on Figure l.
Diving operations commenced on September 20, 1975 and continued
through September 21, 1975. Divers swam the transects in tandem using
standard SCUBA buddy techniques. As sea floor slope was fairly uniform,
three transects were swum to establish a bathymetric profile of the area.
Notes on the condition of the sea floor were taken during the
transect swims. Further notes were taken on the bottom conditions in
areas between and outside the transects. A steel probe was used to
establish the depth of the sand substrate.
Notes were made on the species of organisms present, on their
abundance relative to habitat position and relative to other localities
along the Sonoma Coast, and on patterns of distribution related to obvious
factors of the physical environment.
The environmental aspects considered include: waves, biological
fouling, bottom sediment with regard to anchor holding capacity, dynamics
of the structure and impact if structure fails.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Substrate
oe The bottom substrate was found to be sharply divided between a
FIGURE 1
SAMPLING SITES AND
TRANSECT LINES
shoreward reach with a cobble and boulder bottom and a seaward reach
with a coarse sand bottom. The division occurs approximately 650 feet
from shore (see Figure 2). It is possible this was an anaomolous year
in that the beaches were not replenished from the previous winter's cut
back of sand to the offshore; this possibility is suggested by other
beaches in the vicinity. If the beaches had not recovered to normal
equilibrium, it would be expected next year the sandy bottom would be
closer to shore.
The inshore area is composed almost entirely (99%) of small rocks and
large boulders ranging in size from one to five feet, with some (1%) inter-
mittent small patches (less than one foot diameter) of coarse sand. The
offshore area, is composed entirely of the same coarse sand. There was a
distinct dividing line between the rocky area and the sandy area, not a gradual
transition from one substrate type to the other.
The sands of the seaward reach were found to be over three foot in
depth. There was considerable evidence of regular and violent displacement of
the sands due to wave action. The sand bottom was disturbed by the surf
which was running between four and seven feet in the study area. Suspended
silt and detritus limited visibility, particularly at depths of less than
fifteen feet.
Waters
The wave environment during the months of August and September is
generally mild. The wave height statistics for a three year period, 1956
220 through 1958, indicative of waves offshore of the proposed site, are given
40’
FIGURE 2 (1400’ OFFSHORE)
PROPOSED MARINE SITE
CHRISTOS RUNNING FENCE
Z ‘
Z |------------~—------—---- -- + ~-- ----- —----- = - === ah Ee
ices (1200’ OFFSHORE)
WW
Ww
&
aS
x }
WS
One eee Panera: el dis, au ol ae
SAND (1000’ OFFSHORE)
_ aan BA.
1 ’
EL \ Ma!
7 XN te a! ws $44 i
eee SS =
Ww
a
SESSA M Sy Per |} MMMM Ut, tcp, cea al een emer Sree
ad paths Peake
=n ee ie A Be hd A th an pees nde
Grigmey. Taw ie a Belkhh 9)* fe ihli." ee
a Wee
Xz
wy
2S
= z conressseseue et %
5 ee 2 Sree ——
o a Diesed i Bee a ce aT
pe et ae
92 een
ye i 250'
& Site Ammer te 8S wi hog sumer nae
Se 7 i e
ao 2 : ee
_— ee ee a ;
< = Pm oN oe a iP seg, nals WS ne ae ee YX fn oS
S # 100 ee ee a are Ve NAY i ae
a 5 ens aces ae ane eee fe
<< = #,
a cane cea es a ei eae re ere GC
oa ee pe AW 25) SMALL PEPY
Ey BASELINE ROCKS: 250’ FENCE PROPOSED
ee BETWEEN THEM
ms. WASH ROCKS; EXPOSED AT LOW TIDE
OTHER ROCKS
—.* NOT EXPOSED AT LOW TIDE
-=""~ BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS
=== APPROX. DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN ROCKY 221
iv SUBSTRATE & SAND SUBSTRATE
in Table 1. This data is from the National Marine Consultants Wave Statistics
report which is the standard reference for the West Coast. The maximum wave
height is less than 11 feet and the average wave height less than 3 feet.
The waves' heights are the average monthly frequency of occurrence (percent)
from all directions SW - NW. It is assumed the decreased wave height due
to headland sheltering and refraction is balanced by the increased wave
height due to shoaling and the wave height statistics are indicative of the
breaking wave heights at the surf zone.
TABLE 1
Wave Height (feet) Percent of Occurrence
July August September
calm - 3 85.3 Sie 525
3 - 4.9 eS! LS iey7 PAT} oa\
5 - 6.9 16 Dre Me Jene
7 - 8.9 Sr
9 - 10.9 0.3
It is important that buoys and other large area appurtenances be
outside the surf zone to minimize forces on the structure. The surf zone
is defined as the point at which waves start to break. Conservatively assuming
a maximum breaking wave height, H,, of 8 feet for the month of August, the
depth of wave breaking, hy, is calculated: h, = 1.28 H, = 10 feet. Hence,
the surf zone during August will extend to a maximum depth of 10 feet, or
approximately 100 feet offshore.
The dynamics of the structure was examined because of the cyclic
222
wave loads. The resonant frequencies of the cable structure in two modes
of vibration were calculated. The calculations are given in Appendix A. No
dynamics problems are anticipated since the resonant frequencies of the
structure are sufficiently removed from the frequencies of the waves at the
peak of the energy spectrum.
The most vulnerable aspect of the ocean portion of the structure is
the anchoring system. The offshore anchors are also the most difficult
aspect to reliably design. The holding capacity of the anchors is most
dependent on the bottom sediment characteristics. The coarse sand affords
good anchoring capability. The anchors will be subjected to long term
static loads of 14.3 Kips and a conservative maximum cyclic load of 1.6
Kips due to wave action (See Appendix A). Scour about the anchor may occur
since the anchors will be placed in shallow water where significant wave
action can occur. Hence, because of the possible reduction in holding
capacity of the anchor due to creep resulting from cyclic loading and because
of scour, a safety factor of at least two is recommended. It is extremely
important that the anchors be properly set (dug into the sediments) in order
to accomplish the design holding capacities of the anchors.
If the anchors do not hold, the cables will go slack. The cables would
tend to bury themselves in the slack condition in the offshore regions. It is
not anticipated the anchors and cables would drift substantially parallel to
the shore in the slack conditions. In the event of an anchor failure, the
cables can be salvaged from shore because of the high breaking strength of
the 7/8" cable and high point of lift on the bluffs.
223
224
Biology
No organisms or signs of living organisms were seen in the sandy
portion of the study area. This is not surprising in light of the agitated
condition of the substrate. Only the most mobile of benthic infauna or
epifauna would be able to avoid burial in this region.
The organisms of the rochy suostrate were typical of that of a high
surge and high abrasion habitat in the shallow waters off the Sonoma Coast.
Coralline algae of the articulated genera were the most abundant organisms.
They were found from five to twenty-five feet in depth and covered most of
the exposed rock surfaces. ‘The second most abundant aigae, though by no
means abundant in terms relevant and relative to other sites along the
coast were the coarse phaeophytan forms: Pterygophora californica,
Distyoneurun caltforntewm, Laminaria sp., and Egregta menztesit.
Virtually a!l of the phaeophyta were concentrated in water less than
10 feet deep on the lee side of offshore rocks, sheltered from wave
action.
The invertebrate life of the rocky area was concentrated in deep
cracks between rocks. Sponges and tunicates were most abundant. Patiria
mintata was the dominant seastar (25 were seen). Other seastars seen
include: Pisaster ochraceus (3), P. giganteus (2), and Pyenopodia helt-
anthotdes (4). The main prey of the seastars appeared to be small shelled
gastropods, such as Ceratostoma folitatum (15) and bivalves, such as
Protothaca etaminea and Hinnites sp (4). Barnacles were extremely uncommon,
except for a few Balanus nubilus (3) in deeper water (25 feet). Other
organisms observed are as follows:
gum boot chiton Cryptochiton stellert (2)
nudibranch Hermtssenda crassicornts (3)
sea anenome Eptactis prolifera (4)
sea anenome Anthopleura sp (2)
sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franetscanus (8)
ab alone Haltotis rufescens (6)
The relatively low biomass and diversity of both plants and animals
in this particular marine habitat is probably governed by wave action and
concomitant sand abrasion.
An often encountered problem of structures placed nearshore is fouling
due to entanglement by algae, particularly the giant kelp macrocystis, which
is torn loose during periods of high waves and storms. The entangled algae
can greatly increase the drag forces on the structure. Fortunately, few algae
and no kelp were found in the survey area. Hence, biological fouling should
not be a problem during the life of the structure.
IMPACTS
The sea floor of the seaward portion of the site chosen for anchoring
RUNNING FENCE is covered with more than three feet of coarse sand which is
subject to regular agitation by wave action and is consequently barren of
macroscopic organisms. 225
226
The sea floor of the shoreward portion of the site chosen for
anchoring RUNNING FENCE is covered with cobbles and boulders which support
a relatively depauperate flora and faina of surge resistant algae and
crevice dwelling invertebrates which have survived the sand abrasion
occasioned by the wave action.
It is unlikely that any severe habitat damage could be caused by
an anchoring device in either segment of the study area. None of the species
observed to be present are rare either locally or regionally and recruitment
would quickly restore any losses.
It is unlikely that any severe marine habitat damage would be attendant
upon a failure of either the anchoring device or the suspension cable.
Abrasion and burial result in a relatively low biomass and species
diversity in this area. The impact of a temporary anchoring device on existing
populations is judged to be extremely local and minor.
MITIGATION MEASURES
As an art work, RUNNING FENCE, is presumed to be physically ephemeral
rather than temporally enduring. Bouys and other large area appurtenances shoul
be located outside of the surf zone. A safety factor of two should be
utilized in the deisgn of the anchors and anchors should be properly set
to accomplish the designed holding capacities. Provisions should be made
for removing the physical remains after the aesthetic impact has been
accomplished, or following a failure of the anchor system.
APPENDIX A
WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATION OF RESONANT FREQUENCIES ON STRUCTURE
Md axjmuw arr Vo Te a7 strueYure CLA Ho
Joacts on ieee: Assume Single DVO aAisplacly
BOOG /AS, and weigh 7 ois Bvey ss SIO/GS:
Dimmers S- 6/114 Je buey
Li splacemen? = z 77 A ay = 3000 ¥
ot = Aa or ee ones
fi = Sete; rie var a. S@Ca Gate rer 7.
eS ee
Bea Geos") 6 as re
77 (e+ o4t )
ea ee Drag Fore. oF 4v0g , f=
bee he Ve
ae
Lahr A= Tea
4
So os 9? V9? From Sol Pov Weave a
ee [9/2 Sia ae a at pe eat ae
Cy = VO , Le dy sae
227
Ve 2 A \los) mAs) O44) eee TES As
Moves oF Vy BRATION
4 lateral vibration =
Fe
et ARAM ofr Teas fae
ZH W Pekble 2 maassfonit fengt
Ve
T+ /4.3K
4 = Comer
S6 Ves4yee = as 26 2
ee ae
J mero
——— =e
f = / /lt. 3 ee DAE OSS
4 2 (S20) Vino sue
Spy, Vi brep)m lew Ys Bee eel mags oF
ken ca ay
2
Spring eee
peek 2IEA E «elashe modules = 13X10 45,
y aK Sf Cass le
a = S00 LF
228
Keg
Ke
2
a
J
/
Y)
Dene
yd < Cues eerdecr aturm -
Fore: nf
eee SK.
Gs yO) oe
cal a £5 on
= , C 2
= 20360 *pse) 7 (7) + (02.405)
Soo’
ye Meo kD lo
ye
/ te ales ef
fek y esis “7 BAA ec! Ht $5 Sf
2k y +7 ales
’ é
ja Df F525 76
sy eae 2 = 2 AGisea!
caps
ae5 wor
/ i . o ¢ y on
Henec / J) 9 Teri Ne a) cess /77 At re rir pred Crns dre
cat 1 Ay s a eo oe
4
ect ea Ss
229
APPENDIX N
EXHIBITS
231
SUMMARY OF TEST PROGRAMS
FOR
CHRISTO’S RUNNING FENCE
by
URS/THE KEN R. WHITE COMPANY
3955 EAST EXPOSITION AVENUE
DENVER, COLORADO
KRW No.: 3031
August 5, 1975
Ernest C. Harris, P.E., PhD
Project Engineer
233
234
SUMMARY OF TEST PROGRAMS
Several types of test were performed to aid in developing the final
design of Christo's Running Fence. These included laboratory tests of
small components, tests of cable/anchor assemblies and cable connections
at the Contractor's shop, plus full-scale field tests. The latter in-
cluded a preliminary test (Test No. 1) to measure pole-soil interaction
and compare anchor types , and a full-scale prototype test (Test No. 2)
used to compare various details and as an aid in developing a final design.
Test No. 2 was the more advanced and had considerable influence on the
final design.
TEST NO. 2 - GENERAL
The objects of Test No. 2, the full-scale prototype test, were:
(1) To confirm that the actual structure would behave as predicted
by the engineer's computations.
(2) To try several variations of detail in the structural system to
determine those that would be:
(a) aesthetically satisfactory to the artist;
(b) satisfactory to the engineer; and
(c) considered feasible by the Contractor.
Test No. 2 was conducted at Soda Lake, near the town of Morrison, Colorado,
during the first half of 1974. This site was selected for its strong winds
and proximity to the offices of both the engineer (URS/The Ken R. White
Company) and the contractor (A & H Builders, Inc.).
Test No. 2 consisted of four spans of the Running Fence, including a
right-angle turn and a hill. The plan of the test setup is shown by
Figure 1, attached.
The setup for Test No. 2 was used five times, in what were called "Runs"
A, B, C, D and E. Each Run was tested for a long enough time for artist,
engineer, and contractor either to find the tested details unsatisfactory
or to confirm that they might be used in the final design.
Recording wind gages were operative during most of the test period.
With five test runs and four test panels it was possible to experiment
with many different details and methods of construction. Among the features
which were varied and tested were:
se Tacs
eT
Lael URS/THE KEN R. WHITE COMPANY
Home Office 3955 East Exposition Avenue
RS CORPORATION Denver, Colorado 80209 PAGE OF
CRW JOB NO. 7/- Po? DATE__ 8 f-76 BY ECM CHECKED BY
SLIENT pRoect Aumwiws FEMCE he!
suBJeCcT__ Ayer — Sena Lake Sve - Terr We. 2
=
¥
END Guy
46" LG = LATERAL Guy
* = Wwo Gace
Figure 1 -— Pran- Layout of Test Na. 2 a>
(wot To SCALE)
236
Types of fabric (glass cloth vs heat-set nylon and nylon “grey goods").
Length, height, and shape of cloth panels.
Double vs triple and quadruple seam stitching.
Presence or absence of webbing in hems.
Pole sizes (3-inch vs 3-1/2 inch and 3-inch, reinforced).
Detail at top and bottom of poles.
Methods of installing ground anchors.
Method of bottom-edge tiedown (11 anchors vs bottom cable and 2 anchors)
) Type and spacing of ties between fabric and poles (pole ties).
) Type and spacing of top hooks and bottom hooks.
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Type of ground anchor.
)
)
0
]
2) Methods of installing cables and cloth panels.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(9
(]
(1
(]
Each of the Runs remained in place until winds occurred which were strong
enough to cause failure of some element. Though it may seem odd at first,
Structural failure was essential to the success of these tests. The reason
-- it is not sufficient to know that a particular design would withstand
wind speeds up to x miles per hour. What is needed is to know how the system
will fail and at approximately what wind speed. Actually, the first of these
-- how the system will fail -- is the more important.
RUN A - TEST NO. 2
Run A showed that either type of nylon panel was satisfactory. The mode
of failure, however, showed that a positive tie-down of top cable to pole
is essential if earth anchors at other poles are not to be withdrawn. Run A
also showed that a better method had to be developed to prevent the poles
from moving downward (sinking) under repeated wind loading. The initial
methods tried for connecting the cloth panels to top cable, poles and bottom
anchors were satisfactory structurally, but very cumbersome to handle.
These preliminary results were then considered when modifying the system
in preparation for Run B.
RUN B - TEST NO. 2
Modifications made for Run B included:
(1) "Shoe angles" at ground level on each pole. (This measure was com-
pletely successful; it prevented appreciable downward movement of
the poles, was used in Runs B, C, D and E, and is specified in the
final design.) |
5 toh |
(2) Positive means were provided to hold the top cable down to pole
No..4. The ground slope change here caused the top cables to
apply an upward force component to the pole under full wind. With
the modified detail this upward component was resisted by the lateral
guys and their ground anchors. The modification was successful and
the principles involved were used in the computer program developed
for final design.
(3) All cloth panels were changed, glass cloth being used on one span
and nylon on the others.
(4) Hooks and pole ties were changed, the object being to determine a
design for each ensuring that the cloth panels would become dis-
connected before the wind caused structural damage. This principle
hereafter will be referred to as "fused connections".
Run B was observed around-the-clock. On the 9th day of the test, the type
of failure we were seeking occurred. The system had withstood winds in
the 45- to 50-mph range for almost two days with negligible damage. Then,
under a gusty wind, recorded at 50 mph, the fused connections in span 1
released the cloth panel, pole ties opening first and then all top hooks
opening. This allowed the cloth panel to spread out flat on the ground,
still attached by its bottom edge and still in fairly good condition.
With the cloth no longer in place, wind forces on the structure of span 1
were much reduced. Winds of 75 and 80 mph were recorded about five hours
later, and neither the released cloth panel nor the structure for span
No. 1 suffered any damage.
Run B provided much information which was used directly in final design.
The principal conclusions from Run B were:
(1) Top fusing (opening of top hooks following the opening of pole ties)
is the best system, protecting the structure and preventing serious
damage to the cloth itself.
(2) The structure proper (with the cloth released from poles and top
cable) can withstand winds causing well over 20 1b per sq ft (psf)
pressure on flat vertical surfaces without structural damage.
(Sonoma County's Building Department requires that this capability
be shown by computation also. It has been done. Copies of the
computations can be provided by the writer if needed.)
(3) The structural system, as a whole, was structurally satisfactory,
although individual details in spans 2, 3 and 4 were, in most cases,
discarded in favor of those for span 1.
Sooo
237;
238
(4) Glass cloth was shown to be completely unsatisfactory, fraying and
breaking up under gusty wind so that particles and threads were
scattered over a wide area. The nylon panels, selected for final
design, even when badly damaged remained together and remained
attached to the structure.
(5) The shoe angles proved completely satisfactory in slowing downward
movement of the poles to a tolerable rate.
(6) Use of the lateral guys to resist upward components of the top-cable
forces is satisfactory.
Even though Run B provided what we were looking for, additional Runs C,
D and E were made to experiment with other variations in cloth panel shape,
pole details, etc.
RUN C - TEST NO. 2
In Run C, reinforcement used earlier on poles 2 and 5 was removed. Also,
a bottom cable was added to all spans. The cloth panels were connected
to this cable, and the cable was anchored to the ground at 20- to 22-ft
intervals.
Pole ties on three of the poles were deliberately made much stronger than
the "fused" pole ties that had worked so well in Run B. The object was to
see whether the cloth itself could serve as the "fuse". Other details
(hooks, hook spacing, etc.) were varied from span to span and most were
different than for Runs A and B.
The fused pole ties for span 1 functioned properly again, but this time
the bottom cable (in this span, of lighter weight than in spans 2, 3 or 4)
broke, releasing the lower edge of the cloth. This occurred under gusts
of 50-to 60-mph, and the cloth then hung "like a sheet on a clothesline".
No structural damage occurred, showing that bottom fusing might be used
instead of top fusing if desired.
The value of the fused pole-ties was shown dramatically by Run C. While
poles 1 and 2, having fused ties, were not damaged at all, poles 3, 4
and 5 all failed in bending. Severe bending moments occurred in these
poles when transverse wind forces were applied to them by the extra strong
ties.
These three poles were damaged beyond repair, being bent nearly parallel
to the ground. However, they remained vertical below ground; they did
not tilt and break out at their lower end. The low section modulus of
the 3-inch pipe just doesn't provide the flexural strength and stiffness
required to disrupt the soil in that way when embedded to a depth of ‘
nearly three feet.
Sade
The failure in poles 3, 4 and 5 was probably precipitated by a break in
the connection of one lateral guy to its earth anchor. As a result, the
detail at that connection has been strengthened (and simplified) in the
final design. (Subsequent to Test No. 2, that detail was tested several
times by the contractor at his Broomfield, Colorado, yard. The writer
pa these tests, which confirmed the suitability of the revised
detail.
A new, simple top-of-pole detail was used in Run C. This detail proved
completely satisfactory and has been copied for the most part in the final
design.
Following their review of the results of Run C, artist, engineer and
contractor concurred that the most desirable construction was top-fused,
with weak pole ties, as demonstrated by Run B.
RUNS D AND E - TEST NO. 2
Runs D and E involved only spans 1 and 2, the two spans meeting at a right-
angle turn in the line of the Running Fence. With both of these Runs fur-
ther variations of cloth panel details, pole ties and top and bottom hooks
were tried.
The important finding from Run D was that an improved configuration of
pole tie would be needed to ensure that the ties would open at turns in
the Running Fence and also under winds from any direction at straight
Sections. The ties at pole No. 2 were positioned for Run D so that their
hooked ends were subject to little force, while the side opposite the hooks
received the higher force. Thus, these ties did not open as required and
pole No. 2 was severely bent under winds of about 56 mph.
As a result of this experiment, the pole tie was redesigned as a two-piece
wire loop having one point of weakness on each side of the Running Fence.
With this revised design, the pole ties function as fused connections under
either direction of wind, and at turns or corners as well as along straight
runs.
In Run E, the original type of pole ties were used again, but placed with
their hooks on the outside of the turn (i.e., opposite to the position for
Run D). This time the pole ties opened as planned. The wind speed for
this final test is not known, as the wind recorder was behaving erratically.
However, the test panels and structure did withstand 58 mph winds without
damage.
239
240
TEST NO. 2 - SUMMARY
Test No. 2 provided much information used directly in final design, alerted
us to necessary design precautions, confirmed that the "fused connection"
concept was desirable and feasible and allowed the artist to confirm that
the work would meet his aesthetic requirements.
Structural features selected from the results of Test No. 2 and confirmed
by either engineering computations, laboratory test or component field tests
are:
(1) Cloth panel details -- material, height, length, shape, stitching,
grommet spacing.
(2) Pole size and details -- top slotted connection and shoe angles.
(3) Bottom tie-down system, consisting of a bottom cable with earth
anchors at about 21-ft centers.
) Lateral guy and end guy systems.
) Connections of guy cables to earth anchors.
) arth anchor type.
)
Pole ties -- a specially developed, two-piece wire loop, sized to
open under light wind pressures so as to protect the poles.
(8) Top and bottom hooks -- specially designed and developed double
hooks, designed for quick installation and shake-proof service,
yet of intentional weakness to allow them to release the fabric and
prevent damage to cables and withdrawal of earth anchors.
In final design the change of air density with elevation was considered,
so that at sea level the top hooks will function as did the Run B hooks
at about 5,300 ft above sea level.
The cloth panels for Test No. 2 were 18 ft high. This height allowed the
cloth to touch the ground and drag from side-to-side as the wind shifted.
Over the several months that the test was underway, this brushing back and
forth eroded a narrow path along the line of the Fence. To make sure that
this will not occur with the Running Fence in California, the height of
the cloth panels was reduced so that the bottom cable and cloth are held
clear of the ground for a few inches. This was shown to be successful in
two spans of Run B. All panels for the actual Running Fence proposed for
construction in California have been made to this reduced height.
It is interesting to note that within four months of the end of Test No. 2,
it was impossible to detect where the four-span prototype had been. Even
though some construction took place during our season of alternately thawed
and frozen ground, recovery had been complete, and this recovery took place
during Colorado's harsh, dry summer.
eAGre
The word "failure" may have an undesirable ring, but for the engineers
assisting Christo on the Running Fence, controlled failure is extremely
important. It is through pre-planned points of controlled weakness that
safety is assured.
Should failure occur, we expect it to be an obscure event, hooks and ties
releasing to allow the fabric to lie on the ground, out of site to most
observers. No harm should come to the poles, but even if some poles were
lost their low flexural strength would prevent them from damaging the
ground. Anchors and guys will be the strongest of the structural elements
and anchor withdrawal is extremely unlikely.
241
GayAu Miers dy, ob
EASEMENT AGREEMENT*
AGREEMENT made aS , between
of whe
; County of a
State of California, herein referred to as GRANTOR, and RUNNING
FENCE CORPORATION, a corporation organized pursuant to the laws
ef the State of Illinois and duly qualified as a foreign cor-
poration in the State of eaten aeene rests referred to as
GRANTEE.
In consideration of to be paid upon
commencement of the project described hereinafter on the jemaenes
GRANTOR, GRANTOR hereby conveys and releases to GRANTEE an
‘easement and right of way for a certain fence, hereinafter more
particularly designated and described as the "Running Fence,"
for the period from April 1, 1975 to November 1, 1975, over and
‘nevoss lands owned by GRANTOR and situated in the County of (Marin
(Sonoma) , State of California, and more particularly described
as follows:
(Insert Legal Description)
242
*Many of the executed agreements were modified in minor EBESDEEES
as a result of negotiations between Grantor and Grantee.
‘The right of way hereby conveyed and released to GRANTEE
is for the sole purpose of locating, estabkishing, storing, con-
structing and maintaining over and across the above described land
a work of art known as "Running Fence" and includes all neces-
sary and proper foundations, footings, and othe fixtures for use
in connection with such Running Fence, together with a right of
way on, atong and in all of the hereinafter described Strip of
the above-described land.
The aforesaid Serie eueanats across the above-described
land and covers a strip of land 40 feet in width, which is approxi-
mately located as indicated on Exhibit A attached hereto and which
will be more particularly located by mutual agreement of GRANTOR
and GRANTEE. .
GRANTOR, for the consideration aforesaid, further grants
_to GRANTEE the right of ingress to and egress from the Strip over
and across the land by means of roads and lanes thereon, if there
is such, otherwise by such route or routes as shall occasion the
least damage and inconvenience to GRANTOR.
GRANTOR shall have the right to use the Strip for pur-
poses not inconsistent with GRANTEE's full enjoyment of the rights
hereby granted, provided that. GRANTOR shall not erect or Cane eenee
any building or other structure, or drill or operate any well
within the Strip.
‘ GRANTEE shall also have the right from time to time to
trim and cut down and clear away any and all brush now or hereafter
on the Strip which, in the opinion of the GRANTEE, may be a hazard
243
to the Running Fence or any of its employees or agents who may be
involved in constructing the Running Fence; provided, however,
that all wood or brush, if deemed valuable by the GRANTOR who
&
Shall so notity GRANTEE, shall continue to be the property of
GRANTOR. GRANTEE shall not remove or damage any trees.
GRANTEE shall also have the right to mark the location
of the Strip by suitable markers set in the ground, but the mar-
kers when set in the ground shall be placed in such a way or in
such a location so as not to interfere with any reasonable use
GRANTOR shall make of the Strip.
GRANTEE hereby covenants and agrees as follows:
(a) GRANTEE shall backfill any trench
or excavation made by it on the Strip, shall
remove any and all material (which, at GRANTOR's
option, shall become property of GRANTOR)
and/or equipment as shall have been installed
on the Strip, and shall leave the Strip in as
good condition as received (excepting reasonable
wear and tear and damage resulting from GRANTOR's
negligence) upon the removal of the "Running
Fence.”
(b) GRANTEE shall indemnify GRANTOR
against any loss and damage which shall be
caused by the exercise of the rights of ingress
and egress or by any wrongful or negligent act
or omission of it or of its agents or employees
in the course of constructing the "Running Fence."
Prior to any entry or use of the premises, ex-
cept surveying, a copy of GRANTEE's indemnity
insurance policy shall be delivered to GRANTOR.
(c) GRANTEE shall not use said Strip for any
unlawful purpose and will conform to and obey
all laws, regulations, ordinances and orders of
all governmental authorities or agencies, eae aa
the use of the Strip.
(d) GRANTEE shall procure and pay for, at
its own cost and expense, fire and liability
insurance policies in connection with the "Running
Fence" project, such policies to be in favor of and
244 payable to GRANTOR, and to GRANTEE, as its respec-
tive interests may appear.
(e) GRANTEE further agrees not to do any act or
thing to create any mechanic's lien or claim for lien
against said property owned by GRANTOR and to pay any
mechanic's lien claim within thirty (30)days from the
date such claim is made, or to provide upon GRANTOR'S
request a good and sufficient surety company bond to
indemnify and save harmless GRANTOR against any such
claim for all damages, costs, attorneys' fees and
expenses, and any judament or decree which might be
rendered against Said GRANTOR or said premises on
account of any such claim, matter or thing.
GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees as follows:
(a) GRANTOR is the lawful owner of the premises
on which the Strip is located, and there is no
restriction, condition or covenant in GRANTOR's title
to the Strip, nor is there in effect any zoning
ordinance or other governmental statute, action, law
or regulation impeding, limiting or prohibiting the use
of the Strip for the use intended by GRANTEE.
All notices, requests, instructions, legal
Yrocesses and other documents to be given hereunder shail be
nm writing and shall be delivered ner egnalies against receipt
yx by registered mail, return ‘receipt requested, as set forth
elow.
If to GRANTEE, Running Fence Corporation:
HOWARD No Nepsr
Mr. Scott Hod tev WN, ERLE
Be eee cesiic cérces HOWARD, PRIM, Mee NAMEN SK.
Suite 4400 CANADY & POLLAK
Chicago, Illinois 60602 650 CALIFORNIA, SUITE 2920
If to GRANTOR: SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
he benefit of the parties hereto and their successors,
245
representatives, executors and assigns.
The parties hereto shall execute such other documents
as may be necessary for the implementation of this Agreement
and the warranties herein contained.
‘IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Agreement to be exeucted as of this day of '
19 °
GRANTOR
RUNNING FENCE CORPORATION (Grantee)
BY .
246
Bond Number 475288602
PERMIT BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, RUNNING FENCE CORPORATION and
A & H BUILDERS, INC., 3050 Industrial Lane, Broomfield, Colorado 80020, as
Principals and THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation,
as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the COUNTY OF MARIN, CALIFORNIA,
as Obligee, in the penal sum of FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($40,000.00)
DOLLARS, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of
which sum well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by
these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, Whereas, the above bounden
Principals have agreed to erect a "Running Fence Project" across certain
property in the County of Marin, California, and to remove said fence by
November 1, 1975, and
WHEREAS, the Principals have been granted a permit containing certain pre-
requisites, terms and conditions by the County of Marin, California.
NOW, THEREFORE, if said Principals shall comply with the conditions of said
permit regarding the erection and removal of said "Running Fence' on or
before November 1, 1975, to the satisfaction of said Obligee, then this
obligation shall be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and
effect.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that no suit shall be brought on this bond after four (4)
years from the expiration of permit which is November 1, 1975.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED this Ist day of April, 1975.
Attest: RUNNING FENCE CORPORATION
Byatt SS See By
Attest: A & H BUILDERS, INC.
By Seth ge So nse Ai lp sla By
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
By
Courtney T. Peterson, Attorney-in-Fact
g.a. talSert, Inc.
' ys sot vO, 08
7 ONT THOUSAND OM LINCOLM SIDTET
Benmvea, COLOCHABO 80303
ARBA CODA BO3s/392-1330
247
(U2 191975
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOI
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA 9440
Moe we Isy pals) S
Gerry Wolff
Environmental Science Association
1291 Fast Hillsdale Boulevard
Foster City, California 94404
To Whom It May Concern:
The CHRISTO'S VALLEY CURTAIN film has been produced
and is owned by the Maysles Brothers. Christo,
the Valley Curtain Corporation, has not received
and will not receive any royalties and no fee
for thats) taclimy.
Nor will Christo or Running Fence Corporation
receive any royalty or fee for the RUNNING FENCE
film now in production by the Maysles Brothers.
Sincerely,
eas soe Je
President
ee
David Maysles
Vice-President
DM/pld
248
HARRY N. ABRAMS, INC.
TIMES MIRROR
June 6, 1975
Mr. Joseph Bodovitz
California Coastal Zone Conservation Committee
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Sir:
This letter is to advise you that Christo (Javacheff)
has never received and will not receive any royalties from
Harry N. Abrams, Inc. from the sale of any of the three
books which were published by us and which are listed
below:
CHRISTO by Lawrence Alloway
CHRISTO by David Bourdon
To help defray the costs of the above books for
publication, Christo donated to our publishing company
100 signed and numbered lithographs, and will not receive
any form of remuneration for them.
In addition, Christo has personally helped to pay
parts of the costs for the colorplates for the book,
CHRISTO VALLEY CURTAIN, for which he will not be re-
imbursed. He receives no free copies of our books and
is required to pay for them at the wholesale price.
It is my understanding that Christo has spent approxi-
mately $1,000,000 on the "Running Fence" project.
Very truly yours,
HARRY N. ABRAMS, INC.
N. ABRAMS
Chairman
249
HARRY N.ABRAMS,INC.| PUBLISHERS | 110 EAST59TH STREET, NEW YORK,N.Y. 10022 | CABLE: ABRAMBOOK | PL 8-8600
newport
Box 163 Newport, Rhode Island 02840
William A. Crimmins, President Sam Hunter, Guest Director
August 16, 1975
Ms. Gerry Wolff
Environmental Science Associates
1291 East Hillsdale Boulevard
Foster City, California 94404
Dear Ms. Wolff:
I cannot understand the frantic objections to the “Running Fence" project.
Newport, with its roots in the 17th Century and its minds gradually emerg-
ing into the 20th Century accepted the Christo project.
1974 was an America's Cup year, and at the same time 40 sculptors present-
ed 53 works, 14 along Ocean Drive, which is a two-way road roughly 12 miles
long and which up until this spring had minimal parking facilities. Forty-
five million people live within 3 hours drive of Newport, yet there was no
severe traffic jam. The Chamber of Commerce reported no obscene amounts of
tourist activity due to Christo.
The Christo Project, which involved many young people in its production, gc
the normal attention modern art gets. The fact that it was dismantled in
10 days naturally cut down attendance. But the presumed rush to see such
a transient project did not materialize, despite the fact that it was very
well received by both the critical art world and the public.
The most ardent environmentalists who had loudly objected on endless grounc
to its production, were quickly hushed by the fact that the gulls and many
sea creatures enjoyed it. Also, before they could raise other objections,
it was gone and the site returned to its original pristine state.
Ms. Wolff, I know that you have met the Christos and have learned very quit
ly to love them for many reasons, one of which is their sweet sincerity. |!
major question here was typically, “Why?", followed closely by, "How much?'
When both these questions had been answered, the average result was dis-
belief. An American is a fairly practical person and he values what he
works for. He has a very, very hard time understanding a work of art cost
ing $25,000 which serves no practical purpose and which will be quickly di:
mantled. It is those who know the Christos and Modern Art least who raise
the most objections.
Sincerely,
vy Arne >
250 William A. Crimmins |
President
WAC: cc
Enclosure
INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY ART UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA 19174
June 12, 1975
Mr. Joseph Bodovitz
Statewide California Costal Zone Conservation Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. Bodovitz:
I have been following the artist Christo's plans for the California Coast
with graet admiration and enthusiasm, All of us at the University of
Pennsylvania's Institute of Contemporary Art have great respect for
Christo's art. In fact, in 1969 the Institute mounted the first major
American exhibition of Christo's art. The enclosed publication, documenting
Christo's work, was published on the occasion of that exhibition.
The Institute was extremely proud of the exhibition, for it was an early
manifestation of a new direction for art, of which Christo is a major
figure. Christo, like many American Artists such as Robert Smithson, Michael
Heizer and Robert Morris, made a decisive break with the valuable, personally
owned art object. Rather, Christo chose to by-pass the making of unique
and highly valued art objects in order to make works that intervene in
our landscape or the various economic, communication and urban networks
that characterize our environment. It is Christo's desire to work in
a public rather than an exclusive and private scale, with its monetary
benefits that command our respect.
For all of these reasons I am writing to you with the hope that you will
reconsider your position on Christo's project for California. In our
opinion, the project would be a great cultural contribution to the citizens
of California and would draw the public's interest and concern to the
valuable resources provided to Californians by the Pacific coast.
With all my heart, I urge you to endorse Christo's art and allow the
citizens of California the rich experiences provided by Christo's
advanced vision,
Sincerely,
Suzapne sae)
Dixrgct
SD;:at
251
nstitute of Contemporary Art Advisory Board Mrs. Berton E. Korman Chairman e Daniel W. Dietrich II e Malcolm C. Eisenberg
rs. Jack M. Friedland e Mrs. Donald C. Graham e Kevin Gray e Mrs. Walter D. Gray e Robert K. Greenfield e Mrs. L. Harvey Hewit
rs. Morton Hornick e Dr. Ralph A. Jessar e Mrs. Robert Kardon e Mrs. Al Paul Lefton, Jr. e Nathaniel H. Lieb e Mrs. Nathaniel H. Lieb
firs. H. Gates Lloyd e Dr. Paul Todd Makler e Jerre Mangione e Dr. John W. McCoubrey e Henry P. Mcllhenny @ N. Richard Miller e Robert Morgan
heodore T. Newbold e Mrs. Donald A. Petrie e David N. Pincus e Mrs. Karl F. Rugart, Jr. ¢ Benjamin Strauss e Dr. Evan H. Turner e Mrs. J. L. Wolgin
rs. William Wolgin e Peter Shepheard, Dean, Graduate School of Fine Arts @ Suzanne E. Delehanty, Director
th and Walnut Streets e Telephone 215-594-7108
YN] COLLEGE OF MARIN abla. dad Vo da lw
Eres KENTFIELD, CALIFORNIA 94904
Fes ini |
Sonoma County Planning Commission Sans |
Administration Building Room 107A SN On cose
Santa Rosa,California. Cc a4 ae
January 23,1975
Dear Commissioners:
We,the undersigned faculty members of the art department of the
College. of Marin,firmly support the artist,Christo's “running
fence" project in Sonoma and northern Marin Counties.
His considerable contribution to a new vision in contemporary
and avant-garde art is undeniable. In fact,Christo's reputation
with this regard is world-wide. The delicate question of ecologi-
cal damage is answered by Christo's assurance that his structure
will be completely removed in two weeks,returning the landscape
to its original state. We feel,in fact, its memory will serve as
a symbol accentuating Sonoma's beautiful terrain. ’
We are in hopes of student and faculty participation,and the op-
portunity to present Christo's concept to Sonoma and Marin commu-
nities as a vital artistic enterprise. We.trust Christo's appeal
to the Planning Commission will be approved. ;
Yours sincerely,
-Art Faculty members,
College of Marin.
(signed below)
(NMiw kutde Bue soe eS ee
a TN aa oe
Leiber Ac
Masha My rad
ey Peeperrr"
f aa
Pe dy j
“197 at fe: t; seo \
Mary Fuller (McChesney)
2955 Mountain Road
Petaluma, California 9952
January 28, 1975
Sonoma County Planning Commission ;
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, California
Dear Sirs:
As a sculptor and writer about art, I would like to object to the construction
of the Christo curtain here in Sonoma County. I have published articles in
ARTFORUM, ART IN AMERICA, ART DIGEST, CRAFT HORIZONS and my book, A PERIOD OF
EXPLORATION, was published by the Oakland Art Museum in 1973. I have exhibited
sculpture here and on the East Coast. I cite all this to indicate that I am
acauainted with the subject.
I oppose the construction of the curtain for the following reasons:
First: It 4s a money making proposition, a deal, not art. Pieces of the Shriste
curtain from Colorado were sold to the public for outrageous prices. They had
no intrinsic artistic value; they only had value tecause of the publicity built
up around them. A public relations snow job is not the same thing as fine arte
As Ad Reinhardt, the New York painter, so succinctly pointed out, "There is a
kind of moral prestige that an artist has because he's not involved in exploiting
anybody or involved in the values of the business world. If he does become in-
volved in them, he becomes like anybody else and then it becomes funny." A bad jokr
Second: It is a waste of energy and material at a time when people are hurting
economically in this county and all our energies and materials should go into
constructive projects that will benefit the community.
Third: 4t will bring tourists into the county and make it into a crummy Coney
Island kind of event, J don't think the people or the cultural life of Sonoma
County needs this sort of vaudeville turn.
Fourth: It's old hat already. If the county wants to be avant guard, this
Christo is not the one to do anything. As the art critic Peter Plagens pointed
out in his new book about West Coast art (Sunshine Muse) when he spoke of Christo’:
work, among others, it was the swan song of the sixties and their work was
"cumbersome, breakdown prone and esthetically unclear".
Sincerely,
pe AMts Fa Ce
RS CEIVED MarsenGiiee
JAN 26 4975
PLANNING DeFARTMEN
253
Robert McChesney
2955 Mountain Road
Petaluma, California 9952
Feburary 7, 1975
Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments
2555 Mendocino Avenue ——
Santa Rosa, California
Dear Sirs:
I wish to express my concern over the possibility of the Christo fence being
allowed to deface the beautiful countryside of Sonoma County.
I, as an artist of some national reknown in the field of contemporary art who
has shown his work in exhibitions abroad as well as in the United States and
has read of Christo's work in the art magazines and newspapers, find that his
presentation to the public is dishonest and his art forms are discarded ex-
periments of the avant-guarde.
I believe that the Board of Supervisors of Marin Comty was wrong in over-
riding their Planning Commission and sincerely hope that a more positive action
will be taken against this con-carnival-Evil-Knievel-fence-ride in Sonoma
County.
Sati eels te
Covet WBrer
Robert McChesney
er
(RECEIVE
Fes 104975 -
PLANNING DEFARTMEN
\ COUNTY OF sonom
254
14 Park House,
fo 5-11 South Dowling Street,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES ae 2033, :
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA 94404 yaney, N.S.W. Austrailia
17th September, 1975
\
”
EGER
ce rash |
Dear M/S Wolff,
Mr. John Kaldor has asked me to provide information in respect of
Christo's "Wrapped Coast". This project was undertaken after considerable
negotiation as the coast line involved was the northern arm of Little Bay which is
within the grounds of The Prince Henry Hospital, a Teaching Hospital of the Medical
School of The University of New South Wales. The Hospital is controlled by a
Board of Directors comprising 12 very eminent citizens and the Directors gave
permission for Christo to wrap up the coast only after stringent conditions were
agreed upon.
The conditions referred to included guarantees that no permanent
damage would be caused to the headland and foreshores of Little Bay; all
fastenings, structures and material used in the project were removed; necessary
reclamation and restoration would be effected; no damage would be caused the
environment on the headland and the foreshores and any funds raised from viewers
would remain the property of the Hospital. The headland area was rocky with little
native vegetation, but what vegetation was there was unique in that it was one of
the few remaining stands of botanical specimens typical of the Botany Bay area
which would have been catalogued by Sir Joseph Banks, the botanist who was a member
of Captain Cook's expedition. Assurances were sought from qualified botanists and
other experts and the advice given was that there was little likelihood that any
permanent damage would be caused.
The project made an impact on artistic circles in Australia and caused
a good deal of controversy both for and against. Opinions were expressed on many
grounds - artistic merit, conservation, waste of money, environmental damage. At
the time of the "happening" I was the Chief Executive Officer of The Prince Henry
Hospital and two other hospitals of The University of New South Wales, and in this
position I bore the brunt of the negotiations with Christo's sponsors and my Board
of Directors as well as the groundswell of public opinion.
In reply to the questions asked in your letter the following information
is provided.
iS Approximately 29,000 people paid to view the project after it was completed.
Two or three thousand members and visitors to the Coast Golf Club would have
visited the area during the period of construction, and after completion
(the Coast Golf Club is located directly opposite the site of the "happening")
many thousands of people visited the area. At the time, The Prince Henry
Hospital had a work force of some two and a half thousand and I would estimate
that 90% of these people took the opportunity of viewing Christo's work during
construction and after completion. I would estimate that at least 50,000
people viewed the project at some stage or other.
The period of time was about two to three months ~ the period of construction
and that of completion. 255
Zi It would not be possible to indicate from what distances the viewers came
except to say that they came from an area of 30 miles plus around Sydney.
It was a "happening" and it became the thing to go out and see it at the
weekends. Visitors to Sydney would have made it a must to view the project
and they would have included people from the country areas of New South Wales
and the other States of Australia. I have no information as to people making
special visits from long distances but no doubt some would have done this.
The main viewing was from the land but many people did view the project from
the sea and a few from the air.
3. No impact was made on the general environment by viewers.
4. The Hospital received about $4,000 from charges made for inspection. Had
the weather been kinder and the "wrapping" not destroyed by southerly gales,
I would estimate that an income of $10,000 might have been received. No
property sales resulted from the project.
As to the impact that the "Running Fence" might have on the coastal
area of California I can only hazard a guess. Had the weather conditions for
the "wrapping" been more favourable I would have thought that about 100,000 people
might have visited the site during the period of construction and after completion.
I believe Christo's new artistic expression is to run some 20 miles inland from a
point on the Pacific Coast - the same ocean as the "Wrapped Coast''. One would
expect that viewing would be at many points. I can see many people leaving
without appreciation of the message from Christo.
-In conclusion might I say that I have no views as to the value of
Christo's art. The venture was recommended to my Board of Directors by Australian
artists of good reputation, both orthodox and contemporary, and on reflection it
was great fun.
Yours sincerely,
Lo 6 ez a Prue
Jack Clancy.
M/S Wolff,
Environmental Planner,
Environmental Science Associates,
1291 East Hillsdale Boulevard,
Foster City,
CALIFORNIA, U.S.A. 94404.
256
Museum of Contemporary Art
ECEIVE|)
Mr. Gerry Wolff : : fUG 291975
Environmental Planner E IME
Environmental Science Associates Ce peat seeteag
1291 East Hillsdale Boulevard :
Foster City, Ca. 94404
Dear Mr. Wolff:
In response to your letter of August 12: the attendance for
+he Christo exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art,
from January 18 to March 2, 1969, was 13,964. However,
+o this number you should add a much larger but uncounted
group of people who saw the wrapped museum exterior but did
not come to the exhibition i e the building.
Si Be os
257,
237 e. Ontario st, Chicago 606n, Wh 3-7755
AUC 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASS
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA 941
THE First NATIONAL BANK IN RIFLE
4
IF LE, COLORADO
ALLEN R. KOENEKE 81650
258
PRESIDENT
July 30, ]975
Jerry Wolf
Invironmental Planner
Froster City Office
1291 E. Hillsdale Blvd.
Froster City, Calif
Dear Mr. Wolf
I will attempt in the best way possible to explain to
you, the experience we had with Mr. Christo, during
the time he was in Rifle and had the hanging of the
Valley Curtain. The answer to #], the highway situation,
the Valley Curtain did not face the highway, as a matter
of fact, the highway went under or through the curtain,
however you wish to phrase it. This is a small county
highway, that was never heavily traveled, located
approximately ]0 miles from the city of Rifle. To
questions #2 and #3, because of the size of our city
and the location where the Valley Curtain was hung, it
is extremely difficult to estimate the number of people
that actually viewed the Valley Curtain. You are correct
in understanding that the curtain hung for a period of only
28 houss. During this time, there were many many people in
the area and I am sure that had the curtain hung for a long-
@ period of time, the traffic problem would have been quite
unique. From observation of people in the area, we had people
from as far away as Illinois to east and California to the west.
Naturally, again because of the short duration, it was diff-
icult to say what would have happened had we had the full time
expanse that we were anticipating. The answer to #4, what
impact did the Valley Curtain viewers make on the general
invironment, absolutly none. The area now is the same as it
page 2
Jerry Wolf
was prior to Christos hanging of the curtain. The answer
to #5, the economic impact, certainly, the tourist income
was negligable and I can see no correlation between property
sales and the hanging of the curtain.
During the twelve months plus that we dealt with Christo,
the relationship was excellent. The group was very co-
Operative with the City of Rifle, County of Garfield and
the State of Colorado. I don't feel that you could have
had a warmer relationship or people who were more willing
to co-operate in any way shape or form possible. There
were certainly may skeptics and many people who were
dubious of what would happen to the environment and to
the area, if the curtain were hung in the Rifle area.
A group of us went to the governor of the State, explained
our position and thus we feel that we helped Mr. Christo
to get the permission to hang his curtain. I, again, want
to emphasize that if my answers seem vague and sketchy, it
is because of the problems that Christo encountered with
the wind, thus we just were not able to come up with
questions that you need the answers for. Again, if you
need any further information, please feel free to call on
me at any time.
en Somer ie
-
f
Cif ae te $s
Allen R. Koeneke
President
ARK/ce
259
January 8, 1975
Sonoma County Flanning Departinent Res Christo Running Fence
2555 Mendocino avenue parte, (0). Project
Santa Rosa, California
Gentleriens
Regarding the above referenced “Running Fence", here ere our
comsonts as per your request;
1) TRiFelC: Wa, the resiuents of Lechaa Road, now have between
1800 to 2000 cars and trucks passing our homes each uay on their
way to the dupe We foel this is excessivee Will Mr. Christo's
fence bring still nore?
2) VInws While the "i'ence" way be art to soae, the view we now
kave of the Somona IMiountains and surrounding countryside is wore
desirous to use The fence will cross the apex of the hill directly
behind our homes and 18! of white nylon will obliterate our view.
5) ENVIRONMENT: So the HPC finds that the "project will have no
substantial environnental impact." \We wonder if the deer and
rabbits feel the sais way?
4) PRIVATiG PROPERTY: From our understanding of where the fence
will run, the acrea,;se behind our homes is the only unfenced private
property through which it will pass. Where do you suppose people
will go for a close-up look at it? Who will guarantee and protect
our privacy and property? One of the lenes leading to the land
behind us is Warabold Lane; it now is full of chuck holes and barely
gravelled from the scant traffic it now receives. What will happen
to it after two weeks of sightseers (not to mention the construction
crew.) 2? VHO will repeve it for the \Wanboldd use?
5) NOTIC“YS: There is OliE notice of the public hearing posted in
our area (on the pole at lMechan Road and Wianbold Lane) and several
home owners On Mechan Road did not receive your postal card with
the information regarding Mr. Christo's fence.
If Nr. Christo's fence is approved and built, will you Llease
vrovide us the nare and telephone nwaber of who we should call for
hele when the traffic, intruaers, noise and dust become unbearable?
(\ie now must wait for a sheriff's daputy to come from Santa Rosa
and by the time one arrives, our emergency is long past.)
Thank you, in advance, for a careful consideration of our
situation.
260 a = fio, TT ign s:
= epee eee ey aie oe we
Mr. and hirse Komald L. Rayniond
Oly ee road ,
Pataluna, Caltlornta 94952
POINT REYES SVATION, CALIFORNIA 4955
“President Vice Prosid
ten @ Cresidout
WALDO GIACAAIMI LOUIS ALGINI
Point Keyes Station, Calif, Volley Ford, Catif,
Felephone 663-1231 - hector: fiirectar
BON ALG ic hSAAC VALLIAM BARIUM
Olina, Ceht. Potahsag, Celif,
January 135, 1975
jis. Kethleen HE. Ohlson
gnvironnental Planner
itarin Co. Civic Center
San Rafael, California 94903
Dear his. Ohlson:
Secretory
WALTER &. WEYMAN
Marsncll, Calir,
Recording Secretary
ULLA McLEAN
Point Reyes Stction, Calif.
G. 2S
= .
sal or
eo. ED ot
Ga ===
ot® wus 253
2-4 poy oy
RS 2a 8
Nea
Gwe
ui lime) ee
wo — >» ™
spy Sn
=- 1
ea
“ sin
=.) wre
ai may
At a regular meeting of the Board of Directors
of the Warin County Resource Conservation District,
hela on danunary 9, 1975, the Directors voted to oppose
the Christo Running fence project in Marin County.
The effects would be detrimental on wildlife and
@ sfreat fire hazard to the whole area, if constructed
during late smremer, (Greet soil erosion wouid
also
occur by equipment used in constructing end removing
' the fence.
Respectfully yours,
fn “4
Vt an
Valdo Giacomini
President
VWG/um
ce: Werner Von Gundell.
261
“oe are or.ased to Christots Runaing Menea, becavse of the
detrinantal oyviaat ik will have on wildlife. ‘Inen this fence
is pat up, dear «ill not be stle to move around in their natural
habitat. If decs wil’ Mneiry Payne era caus ht on the wrong side of the
teagpocvater source it cowl be very rougn on thea,
2
fenes, fro:
hacoine toes acy nol Pind ang waver. nds was fly, ainital va!
white curtain, ecvectally sal) virds, like quail, which Ealiy,
lower thar elipidecn fret, hero will Le.brosen nectsa snd wings
so thore will eo wounded omd dead birds just like there were
the Santa veryarea oll coo. The other thing i: the Cire
sain
i4 wo) be built in the noxnt
a
Rasardectinaa, Venn eI) reac
riqieal tise ao, tne year Vor fire, ani wis ants. 7:0 OUT
quettion in 1% this curtain made out of fire proor aaterial?
Otnerwise with ceveral wiles of curtain strung toyecher and
sonevody devider: to have a little extra excitement and light=
= match to it on ea windy nizht there will ve Yencet, barns,
wildlive and Vivertosck bua up and possiuly even hones. Vnaere
is a xeal Vire orlentisl just From having a lot of extra people
in tue area. “o abl Marin. county rill get out of tatiis Senco vill be
a lot o° broven botiles, cua, end a lot of conge-titon Oa we |
coals Crom wiles Tease, Ins Cow.ission cacen 1 west ey growth
PUGS aay ES Coury OMMAMe: OL Ung Sasso yl osc Ge LONGUS. Geen =
‘Way.
Sincare ly
rriends of “Vildlite
‘a ~
ot -s
~ r
Oo
Leap aps te}
¢ ‘ .
==
—_—
Np eae
fy ‘
0 ar)
oo emotes
o wh sg
et ss
~~.) cas =
262
256 Alma Drive
Rhonert Park, CA 94928
February 4% =
RECEIVED
Fe eins) 4
PLANNING DEEARTMENT |
COUNTY OF SONOrE: |
Sonoma County Board of
Zoning Adjustments
Administration Building
2555 Mendocino, Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404"
Gentlemen:
In the matter of "The Running Fence".
Unfortunately, I must attend a conference out of the state on February
43, so I cannot attend the hearing scheduled, according to the article
in the San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, for that date on
this matter.
As one who frequently drives between Rohnert Park and Dillon Seach,
I would probably see this fence, if installed, more often than neces-
sary to appreciate its engineering and artistic aspects. At the risk
of being called an unthinking Philistine, I must say that from the
air I suspect the project would resemble a gargantuan roll of toilet
Paper unfurled across the pleasant dairy lands.
However, I should like to raise certain questions concerning this
project, inasmuch as it is estimated it will cost a million dollars.
What kind of fabric is to be used, and what will happen to it as the
Wind and vandals work it over? If this is fabric based on petro-
chemicals, we simply cannot afford to waste that much material. Or
is it to be removed after a set date and put to other uses? If the
builder so stipulates, that may be an acceptable requirement for a
permit; even if the fabric is not made of scarce materials, it is
still too wasteful to abandon the material after it has served ‘its
evanescent purpose (a 20-mile strip of fabric 18 feet wide would be
more than 1,900,000 square feet, or over 43.5 acres of material).
Certainly we cannot seriously consent to a project which will result
in sheets of fabric ripping off and blowing about the landscape to
be draped over the cows and fences of the countryside. The project
will also involve posts and steel cable. What is to happen to this
material? Or has there already been an agreement that these items
are to go to the landowners concerned? Should there not- be a require-
ment to remove the posts and cables before permitting such an artistic
experiment? :
In short, I would recommend that approval of this project be conting-
ent upon salvage and removal of all materials after a stipulated date.
Very truly yours,
i Wher 263
Joel \W. Hedgpeth
\
JWH:bl
Seo 20 Nita were
7 $ ¥e ‘ . see see BOL ; = = ty ' Bigs, . ‘
eect ATLL] Rohneve Park, Gh Shve
Cintas hs Bait hanehva LOGS
eral h \ apes
fac Hao B75
North Central Reyisnal Coast Commission
L050. Wortiiguie - - wlisce 230
san Itafuel, Califurnia 96903 _
Gentlemen:
subjects . The Ruining Fence
After seeing the Corps of Engineers! public notice 75-315-053, concern-
ing the Running Fense project, 1 must disaqree with them thot the pro-
ject does nut vequire an environmental inpect report. lot only is there
danner Gf causing serious chenges duving actual canctruction of the
fence, there is the perhaps even more sexiuus aspen’ of schaulating une
necessary rout und vehicle traffic (especially motorcycles) an the sea-
ward slopes a& the nuubh of the Estero San Antenio in coastal Marin
County. Une must beer in mind that if this project is carried gué in
September, toward the end of the vry season, its effects may not Lecone
apparent wntil well into the following rainy season. It is posslbhle
thet the activity vould eventually cause a luidslide that would occlude
the mouth of the Estero. “os
It is my understanding that the instigator of this project is promising
to restore the land to its original condition oftecuards. This suggests
to ine. that he is not auure of the dangers of operating on these steep
seaward slopes, that, for exnaple, a post hole nay sbart erasion that in
two or Lhree cnsusng wet seasons could become a serious nully in the
Nilisice., The prapusal to secure the last (ar first) section of the
Fence in the sea a fow hundred feet offshore with a 1,,G00-pound anchor
Sand guy lines is impractical. The sea can be very rough here, and the
whole business may shift within 24 hours, dragging cables und posta
cAtTOUAS in the sca, unich could uidanuger Tisnusnen and skin chvere aa
weis us sitdil crati that would venture nearshure. :
It is abvious to me thot in order to protect the interests af the people
in an unssarred coastal environment, this project should not be approved
without an environmental impact study by competent qeolonists and soils
specialists, and that restrictions should be placed an the kind of public
access to the area, bearing in mind that one of the alleged benefits of
this project is the stimulation of visitors to see the fener. This could
be especially dungerous to the unstable coastal environment because of the
significance placed upon the seauard end af the fence by. the instigator
of the project. Any circumstance which would stimulate a large aunrega--
tion of people on these slopes should be uvoided; it is quite possible.
that plans for a rock music demonstration are already being consiuered.
Such an event could Leave scars on the lindscape for qencrations and I
recammend that if the fence is opproved that access ta view it beyond
regularly paved roads within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission
264
’ “+ fe
2 deg - Hortiy Gost Reghoncd Caast Gusmisnios - 3/26/75
Wise
he restricted to fous ten?fis end vievinn from cenit offators. Nersanily,
any gimen cotivity dostd be mich wore shan the "ainer efrart oF ns sit
pe iomik effert en the quality af the lun envircrsent" suegesicu Lis
the publi notice of the Gurus oF tnigirvcears.
clithis
cos
Very truly yours,
OVI ul. - Hedy wieth
ki
Eeiieihiolden shi tele dee
LAY MOUs) econ e223) (isis eee tates eee hen ainesiiereat
Hoihny C8 ane Hara Gey nm GemaLGN, Och hangel
Jase) Ee iki iva ez, ne Sea Cammienien, Sen f Lancseeer
Felix Ee Gabba, Rae) Gece) saad aig all oil exvelsen? ery otcodee ental
Kenneth Stacking, Denk. af Vielouy, Sonoma Siete Colless, Rot
Ealtar, fun Rararl indepenadait Juurnel, San Rareel
Ciatian, Dillan, Beach, California
wu
pare Park
265
1 29, 1 TUR a Yaet sane? vs a
Naa Ae ah
q us By iu
ESA-EIR-1975
December 12, 1975
Volume 2 of 2
Addendum to the
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses
RUNNING FENCE
Pari 1s -
Written comments on Draft EIR received by
November 26, 1975, and responses thereto.
Part 2 -
Transcript of oral comments at BZA Hearing,
December 3, 1975, and oral responses. Late
written comments.
Prepared under contract to the
SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Santa Rosa, California
Environmental Science Associates, Inc.
1291E. Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, California 94404 415/573-8500
1390 Market Street San Francisco, California 94102 415/552-4775
8725 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90034 213/838-2221
PART, 1%
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED BY NOVEMBER 26, 1975.
I. | INTRODUCTION
This part of the addendum to the Draft EIR on the proposed
Running Fence contains all written comments on that document received
from public agencies, private organizations and individuals during
and following the review period (through November 26, 1975). All
these written comments are presented in Section II and are fully
answered in Section III. This Addendum responds to comments on the
Draft EIR, as opposed to comments on the project per se. Nevertheless,
all correspondence received is reproduced in Section II; some of the
attachments to the commentary (or portions of those attachments), which
add no relevant information, have been deleted. Section III (responses)
was read into the record at the Board of Zoning Adjustments hearing on
December 3, 1975.
Part 1 of this Addendum must be read in conjunction with the Draft
EIR if the comments and the responses to them are to be fully understood.
Each piece of correspondence in Section II has been identified (at
the top) with a letter, from ''A'' through "'N''. In an effort to prevent
confusion, the letter ''I'' has not been used. Within each piece of
correspondence, each individual comment has been identified with a number,
placed in the left margin where possible. The responses in Section III
appear in sequence; that is, commentary ''A"' is responded to in its
entirety, then commentary ''B'', etc. In the response section, comments
are identified by designators such as ''K.13", corresponding to the
identification of the comment in the correspondence as received.
Where necessary, the comment is paraphrased, and the response follows
immediately.
*Part 2 of the Addendum contains written comments received after
November 26, 1975. Also, it presents pertinent pages from the tran-
script of the Board of Zoning Adjustments hearing on December 3, 1975.
Specifically, it presents those pages containing (1) responses to the
late written comments (post November 26, 1975); and (2) oral comments
my Board members and members of the public, and the oral responses
thereto.
II. COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR
—
. : Ste a
are. ae A 267 Cevedale RG Sonore. Co 95470
Naverat eye: aS
Sonoma Csuntrv Board of Zoning Atjustnents
2o99 Wena vein sve
Sanits Poca, Gallant.
DSA esi.
Once esein, es a citizen of Sonoma Covnty, 1 am ested
by the Kunming Fence Cowsittee ts cvrotest any reonening of ne-=
potietions on the crrt of Christo of this abomination ageinst
aes
i
art -nc ‘environmental corruption, I wndarstend there is e meetin:
2)
On Decerocr Srdi et “sate Fose, at wv ick “Christo will ack for -
“str = 2t excension jn t’.e far: of a net anrliceticn to avoid
Bertier iti sation.
Ascorcinely, = Carbon of thie Weesser coes to the
a
Boeso of Surcrvisors, wiicn hae te dass on the use cer it, tio.
i cee you t> ce ell vou cas €> stop this: Aappeni ae
S2ncescly yours,
(a> —— } (: eee
[ee eS ~é vi
Ruth L Corey ; E
RECEIVED
HOV $6 19/5
945- Wir.
PLANNING DEPARTMEN
COUNTY OF SONOMA
Gress ardent as Bi oraiOl eer -ee RLU ees on) cat cans toe
4 317 becham bccu
Fotelumsa, California +492
hoverver 5, 1975
Sonoma County board of Zonin: /.djustien
2535 Nendocinoe Avene
canta Kosa, California
DO Or REMOVE
Deer pourd Lgioors: wit a ly a ill
This latter is written in an attempt to save sine tinceevota yours ann Gere.
at the public hearin: on the inning sence, to expialn who re are tiu v'iy 4
ere @ppeaing the fences
(ur cosmittse ls mace up oF local people, prinrerily; scuie cl us nra concerne
nbimt tie invabion of .rivacy thst the fence will calwe vs As it rivet ser vu
“"homaSe Lose oF ve ere vitaliy concerned about the trerfic ina crovus tot &
uescand vpon Lonome County es a whole, exposing much OF @P x riculturcl ere
to essures that would not ortiinsrily exist, to aevelop into suuvther 2 wit
clera (ounty or Los Anvolese Sone of our me.bers ars w'tiste, weve perncna
cawiitnonts to the fine corte nake thia commurcin) aleplay vory wWltrseteirle
wud, nective environr-sntalists whose concern in for the Druin ema ell Giver,
t im Se
#8 you .rovsbly know, cur carmittes took tie ise of mn lik on the fence to
courte ica von tw Euperior Court rulinz, with C:.0 cuize Lavin; that a proie
of this e326 and natures hea the potentint tor suverce and ei:niricrnt enviro
vental cm:acog they won t'o appellate cot decision, with thet court earhi’
tre Lvjoricr Curt could net have 20 rulad without tho ontire savinisire tire
recorde 49 BOnId have appealed to tro Ciliiornia Caprose Curt, but elas 3%
Isck of funds and & Competent Levzer stopped use
Lo, thwy ere beck to you, Eid in hand, *to avoid further liti, ataon™ ss ©:.
jlanser wordsG ite toa aro alee Dack to you, tit!) the wae cvisetiont, com
und iactse
7
caless thes have come up wlth a rhole ner sat oF coretitions, nun. a those pes
cng OL -rantln, thoir iionitors suthority, their sracmr eit os Une Conmudtiomas
Ab, ul Lust, Subject to disputee an the ratter of crowd Counted, there -va
3@0 Goto herremious exmivlus thet ie is inporsibls to Cucvrel Crovusee
-pousbocsyg the zltasent noek Pe-eativals Senta Cru:ts July ©, 1974, iireter:s
Jiening that ecrusea Gonta Cruz to alecontinue t'e uls:layb wermanantly, hes
masor rerio :iven vac thet enemvency ograjiscent cuctd not respom: procrlye
funnin sopce Corporstion asaimes thet peoile can be cuiutrollods people ers
uocredictavple, especially in crowise
wany Of the conilticns are to repair enviromental et “e dter an coours,
eri oF era erg nt-teri te to miti ste Gazarege CAN VO eFjne6 bOnUne COlts 10
these ann.ors? .
petal ow ONE wlll be nble to travel to Congas Cunty elthad viewLae the bere
19 us fs tris is like relizion=-sameone else's idea shovdd net be soreec on ans
vary truly yours,
TATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
ALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD—
ORTH COAST REGION
}00 CODDINGTOWN CENTER
ANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95401
yone: 707—545-2620
November 10, 1975
F PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY CF CONOMA
Mr. George Kovatch, Planning Director
Sonoma County Planning Department
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Dear Mr. Kovatch:
The water resources section in the draft environmental impact report
on the Running Fence has been reviewed.
We believe that the mitigation part of this section could be
strengthened by referring to or citing the Regional Board's "Water
Quality Control Plan, North Coastal Basin 1-B", which sets forth
special waste discharge prohibitions for nonpoint sources. The
prohibitions are paraphrased below:
The discharge of soil, silt, or earthen material
from any construction or associated activity of
whatever nature into any stream or water course
in the Basin in quantities deleterious to fish,
wildlife or other beneficial uses is prohibited.
Further, the placement or disposal of such
materials where they could pass into any stream
or water course in deleterious quantities is
also prohibited.
Returned herewith is the copy of the Running Fence environmental
impact report, which you sent for our review.
If you have questions concerning this subject, please write to
Ronald Church, Environmental Specialist, at this office.
SONOMA COUNTY Sincerely,
PLANNING DEPT. riled.
i Executive Officer
A mh aya aK at ia “ay ae ; oa
oe fy ff é i a
& nce i » A ae Chae a4
riser ED =. + isd Gal MTS
Sy sd x ee “a Tear og i=
i = ‘st A ; xh re y
t. re “em a
< r 1 Bc x «i
Bea Ge, cds Nisecigen) Sy. fie) alin hd
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
4226 Petaluma Blvd. N., Petaluma, Ca. 94952
November 13, 1975
Sonoma County Planning Department
County Administration Bldg.
2555 Mendocino Ave.
Santa Rosa, Cae 95401
Dear Sirss
After reviewing the Enviromental Impact Report of the Running Fence,
I feel the report sufficient and well presented.
From a soil erosion and sedimentation point of view, the greatest
hazards seem to be from fire removing the ground cover and causing
erosion and resulting sedimentation as a result of winter rains fall-
ing on bare ground.
Respectfully,
af, es iL a% zs Cees,
CHARLES E. SWISHER
District Conservationist
Petaluma Field Office
SONOMA oe
Ley (ao ioe =
Set, ay PLANTS De
" oe (7, ay a)
Noo
; : 6 Pema a
\ C i‘ ia
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY E
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
100 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
SPNCO-R 14 November 1975
Mr. Thomas E. Cordill
Sonoma County Planning Department
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, California 94501
Dear Mr. Cordill:
Inclosed is your copy of the EIR which you requested
be returned. As I am leaving the Corps for
another job on November 14, 1975, I do not have
enough time to suggest official comments for the
€OEDSE
4 May make comments as a private citizen at a
later date.
Sincerely yours
Wee See
Thomas A. Stone
64 a0 OMA COUNTY unctions ranc
aes Dp
Pian eae bet i
=ale cca Ga
tee
ee Maya oS = fen i
\ : = Ss on Oe me ue ee
Nos Segre
pei ers) ase ie W
at Bi aa
gp tes OS
DO KOT REMOVE
RECEIVED
HON tes 1975
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF SONOMA
Keep Freedom in Your Future With U.S. Savings Bonds
Jerome Tichenor
AFFILIATED WITH : Y gwiwer goch 5660 MONTECITO AVENUE
society for the prevention SSN TA DROSS) | CALEORNES aaa
of progress 15 November 1975
Sonoma County Planning Department
Board of Zoning Adjustments
Santa Rosa, Calif.
Gentlemen:
Draft Environmental Report for Fence
In view of the number of ik letters and references casually mentioned
in the text, and the aston gly inadequate section on "Lwgal History of
the Project" without a mee precise date, it is not surprising that
the opinion of artists not in favor of the project are inadequately re-
presented. in particular the opinion of men of letters (of which I am
one) is not represented. Accordingly you will find enclosed a poet's
opinion of this project, which I suspect is not entirely unimown to the
applicant.
Very truly yo
SONOMA COUNTY 7) hye
PLANMING DEPT. nw /
CMP Eee nA 7 if
espe ey ca uns aS pea sig Ras yin = Pla eae, ovony
ek : ‘ JPY [ (pee
coca Ste, fate
mo eo Ts 2 MOVE U ee
PLAN: MG Doers Tete
COUNTY OF CO0OSK
According to bardic tradition, the first environmental impact report was submitted by a delegation of squ
Blin ac afrydd yw’r pyfraith, Odious and hard is the law
mae’n boen i’r gwiwerod bach; and painful to little squirrels.
mynd ar lawndaith i Lundain They go the whole way to London
a’u bloedd a’u mamaeth o’u blaen. with their cry and their matron before them.
Y gwiwer yn e-lyn y byd
ON TOP OF OLD HOKEY
Across old Sonoma
and into Marin,
A fence of white nylon
will take us all in.
For some twenty-four miles
4t will drag o'er the land,
And qleam like fresh laundry:
how utterly grand!
About forty-three acres
of cloth it will take;
Can this be esthetic,
or a silly mistake?
‘Twill ve like T-pcper
spread over the hills,
A sort of reminder
to take the right pills.
Right over the hilltops
and to the seaside,
The fence will be flapping:
tne landscape will slide.
‘Twill last but a fortnight,
wnat harm can that be?
But even a moment
is too much for me.
They tell us we're skeptics
who don't wknow what's art,
And that we're all actors
and each has a part.
We're cll in their caper
and have no escape;
Relax and enjoy it,
and smile as the, rape.
Cur gallery pundits .
claim that it's great art,
Hut it's not as much pleasure
as an elegant fart.
Our brave and proud sentors
fear to be made f.ols of,
So they lean so fir backwards
they make themselves tools of.
Our government botii’:s
are cowed by te iia,
And think all that nyle
will be a great shou.
The farmers are promised
all sorts of rewards -
TV's and white nylon
and flattering words.
The skeptics are certa:-
it's not forjcrs sane,
That the whole dizz. 2roject
is only a fake.
The multitudes singing
in praise of Christc
Are telling the skeptics
just where they can cc.
He's hung his odd «.urtains
by mountain anc sea,
But never did much
to impress you anc i.c.
A million fat dollars
they'd spend on t!i.. farce;
What they need most of 311
is a kick in the arse,
This fence is offensive,
what more can we cai
Than Christo, you *: .2.,
just go far away.
Jerome Tichenor
SONOMA COUNTY
PLANNING DEPT.
TEICIAL
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
o fe ah
en
pokok
(soil)
bp
rat &
JOMA COUNTY
a3
oy.
a} es uiet ae
* “3583 Mendocino Ave
- finally got her by the throat). It is a matter of considerab
eae
ee ie |, JOEL W. HEDGPETH :
566Q Montgcito Avenue, Santa Rosa, California 95404 * Telephone 707-539-1267 |
‘ ENSYRONMENTAL AND EDITORIAL ANALYSIS |
eA * te heed am
si oe 16 Nov 1975
{
geal dining Adjustments |
Songina Gpiity
4
ay
Santa Roga, Calif}
Gehtlemen:
environmental impact Report, Running Bence,
terrestrial phases.
With respect to those aspects of this project involving a fence across
the hills of Sonoma County, I am disturbed by thw high breaking strength
(to withstand winds of 60 miles per hour, or approximately §0 knots) pro-
sed for this fence, The sample of nylon cloth inclpded with some
but not all) copies of the EIR indicates a type of cloth that should
catch any wind, and no sailor would keep his sgils up at 50 Imots. All
tests of this system, evidently, were done in “ olorado, hot under con-
ditions of the coastal winds of the "Petaluma Wind Gap", and, more sig-
nificantly, of the s#fkl conditions of Maring and Sonoma counties in the
area to be traversed by the fence. Since adequate eonditions in this —v& st
envirqjment will depend pn wind conditions, it will be necessary to to wait for
the right conditions to be certain that possible environmental circumstances
will not uproot the ports and induce unfavorable erosion’ patterns in the
local environment. I think that we should demand that test cores be made of
every possible site location for the fence poles to demonstrate that
thet there is, or is not, adequate conditions for the posts and for the
anchoring cables, or whether some of there areas may not on unstable
surfaces near veepage areas or overying contacts with und rocks, etce
The reel issue in this application is not the s~hemergl nature of this work
of "ort" but the events that may be ~-* © motion long after the entrepreneur
has exulted in his trivmpijon ++= TC programs, sold his books and depa~ted
f~om ovr midst. Rape is an all or none provosition. 2nd, as the late FDR
remarked in another context, there is no such thing as "just a little prer-
nancye”
As @ personal matfer, T mst nrotest that my name has been taken in vain
in @ number of places in this EIR. On page 3%, for example, there is a
footone reference to 4 .etter by Ms Azevedo CYakiman (Chairperson?) of the
North Central Regional Coastal Commission to me under the date of Jne 26,
This letter is not included anywhere in this EIR, and since it was also
pub,ishei in the Pouft Reyes Light, I think it should be inclyded. Nor
is my reply to the lady (who apparently cheerfully accepts her designation
as the Red Queen without remembering what happened to the Ree spcees ghen, Alace
that on the same day that Ms Azevedo wrote her rather petulant and prejudiced le
her commission camemto a diambprically apposed dediaion thet evening by
endorsing the application for estuarine sanctuary s atus for this part of
the coast. Is the lady trying to have it both ways? Well, this is not al-
together out of chara cter, for as Humpty Dumpty said, @ word is wort I say
it means, and there is no argyment about it.
Sonoma Countr Bd of Zoning Adjustments, berrestrial phases---2
Aq 5 t
In general, this EIR is surprisingly jnadeqate in essential documentation,
and I must ask whether we have been well served by this process. Where
are the Gates that should have been given in the "legal history"? Where arw
the documents in substantion of the various passing references in the
footnotes? This EIR is prefaced with an imposifig code of ethics, but it
would seem that xm most of the code has been ignored, It is certainly
unethical, for example, to use the casual conversatuon with people as
"consultations" and to use their names in substantiation of opinions
without apprising thosesiconcerned that such casual encounters might be
cjted later as substantive support. I submit, this is in plain violation of
the code of ethics subscribed to. Pwrhaps we need another EIR by completely
ethical people, without this implication of the well known tendency of the
R ence people to encourage only the most favorable comments on their
eae S6e
Be all that as it may, I would like to suggest certain mitigetions for this
project:
1. Reduce the entire project to scake of 1 igch to the foot. The fence
then be 18 innhes high, and the burden of proof would then be upon
Shristo to prepare an inspiring scale model of the entire project.
If it is to last only for a moment in time, whet is the differsnce ;
between one day and eighteen degs, for example? Oy, an ivich oy 4 foot >
2e If the present gramiidse scale is retained, the breaking strength of
the links in the system vis a vis guy wjres, posts, etc, should be reduced
at least fifty percent, to withstand wind forces of about 26 miles per
hour, or equivalent to that strihgeth of force which any prudent master
of a square rigged vessel would reef in all his saile.
3e All substantiating studies of soil strength, effect ofmwinds , etce,
mist involve actual in situ tests in ore and Sonoma counties, rather
thm irrelevant tests in @ ol)rado. What is geod for C@lorado may not be
be good for Sonoma County. I do not believe that we have yet had ade-
quate tests of the environmental effect of this project under local conditions.
i ir
L We Hedgp
CO/“Sonoma Co. Bd of Supervusors
Be ee eNO Meus
ENVIRONMENTAL AND EDITORIAL Pra N Nl Le rN fe ‘. ie os
Le ~ 4
* deh
F ie PETS a) SS 8!s See
: \ ee \ io oe i asta aed aa aes
Nov. 16 1975 a ee ee BLA ii Bra Se hha ih
pat Tate COUNTY, OF
os <oe
Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments : {! ee ce
2555 Mendocino Ave we alae WED
Santa Rosa, Calif gia 34
DO iva REMC yy 7
Environmenta] Impact Report, Running Fence
Gentlemen:
It is necessary to correct the point of view expressed by Dr Welton Lee
in his discusaion of the coastal phase of the Running Fence Application,
specifically his contention that "the area is not of unique biological
signifieance. It is a habitat duplicated in hundreds of areas along the
California coastline and does not represent some critical ecological
system." This area under consideration lies in Marin County (NOF Sonema
County as Dr Lee Sates), and is the only area on the California coast
immedistely between two aetive marine laboratories, one in Sonoma
County and the other in Marin. These laboratories make a significant
educational and economical contribution to bothd counties concernede
In making his judgement, Dr Lee was evidently not adequately informed by
legal counsel for the applicant concerning the present status of this
part of the California coast insofar as the North Central Regional Coastal
Commission is concerned. Ong June 26, 1975, ten days after the California
Coastal Commission rejected, eye 9-3 wote the application for the
running fence to rise from the sea at the mouth of Stemple Creek, the
regional commission, formerly in favor of the fence, approved an applica-
tion prepared by Pacific Marine Station and the Bodega Marine Laboratory
to apply for status as a Federal Estuarine Sanctuary under section 312
of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1992 for Tomales Bay
and the coast line to Bodega Head. T,us the proposed estuarine sanctuary
would "also extend north along the shore line of Bodega Bay to Bodega
Head", as defined in the application approved by the regional commission
and forwarded to the California Coastal Commission by letter of June 27.
This approval by the regional commission is recognitien of the value of
this region to scientifife study and 2 support of the applicatiom for
federal support of research and aquiculture projects innthe area concerned.
By this action the regional commission turned its back on such ephemeral
and non-essential uses of the environment as the running fence stunt.
Therefore, Dr Lee's contention that this area is not unique is beaide the
point. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the North Central Regional
Coumission can reverse itself on the matter of the appropriate use of
this part of the California coastline without declaring that it has no in-
terest in the wisesty and best use of this part of the coast. Certainly
the C alifornia Coastal Commission cannot see fit to approve an action
that would jeopardise a mich more beneficial program for the shoreline,
It would therefore appear that the Sonoma County Planning Coumission and
Board of Zoning adjustments must also agree that potential deaimation
of this area for preferred research status and federal mpport for loeal
laboratories and research aetivities on a long term baais should override
Sonoma C Bd Z. Adjey Pe 2
the transitory desires of people who wish to tramp around, lay cables and drag
things over the landscape for no purpose other than to express some vagus
esthetic ideas in the name of an art form whose essential fegture is ite
ephemeral nature.
I am sorry to say that Dr Lee's implication that I was consulted and con-
curred in his judgement, and by implication, of the relative lack of
effect of the project, is simply not true and mist be corrected. [he
"consultation" consiéted of a few minutes on the telephone at which time
I wa@ given the distinct impression that Dr Lee had not yet decided to
ac the assignment for this EIR, and I consider this use of my name
and reference to me as inappropriate. I think you will find the same
circumstances apply to another person mentioned asa having been "consulted"
in this 1 handed designation by footnote. I would say that proper
"consultation" in this context should include the appropriate documentation
with corpespondence, etc. This at least is the implication I get from the
code of ethics reproduced opposite the title page of this EIR.
In any event, to summarise: the coastline of Bodega Bay has long been a
research resource of the Bo@ega Marine Laboratory and Pawific Marine
Station, and is especially usefu} because its isolated situation makes it
possible to study certain aspects of plant and animal distribution and
interactions without undue interference by man. We do not have many sich
areas within easy reach of othe~ areas intensively studied and visited
by both students and the general public. There~--e, by virtue of this history
ef study and research, the coastline of Bodega Bay . Marin and Sonoma
counties, assumes a character that makes it of special value, whether 1°
<uma and flora @réunique or nots.
In view of these circumstances, any approval of such an activity as the
Running Fenc: > +he seashore should be disposed of as contradictory to the
polchy approved by the North Kesional Commission, and as again * the best
interests, both scientifie and economic, of the marine laboratories and
educational institutkons of Marin and Sondma counties.
Very truly yours
dWhidg
cw California Coastal Commission
North Central Regional C ommission
Sonoma Cpunty Board of Supervisors
Welton L. Lee
Bodegas Marine Laboratory
Edmund H. Saith, flacific Marine Szation ("Edward Smithnof Dr Lee's
list of cmsultants.™)
{
RECEIVED Page (0,5
HOVE 41975 | aft
; NNIMG DEPARTMENT
Sonom&é County Plannin; vepartment yea Sie ae Bd td
2555 Pendocino avenus 4 LCS, rile TU Te
Sunte 1osa, California 95401 Draft 3nvirommental Impact Repert
fe, as: re
WOWCM WAT (ae. LO
attention: ‘Seow ls hovatch, Secretary, Board of “Zohin,, 25 Ustr.Gnus
s
The WIR confirms ms worst fears of the probloms thet the fence will bring t
mwee-increased trarfic, litter, noise, air pollution, fire danver, “nd tre
{Inability of any emergency equipment to respond in « reaconevle wiount ofr tinw
The traffic problems arg all baseu on the publicity atteuain, tie projscte _
Too much publicity has already been given to ite ‘he articles oi Incorporeti
for the Kunning ience Corporstion states (page three, srticle 4, first reragra
last sentence) "...and to attract grouns and individuals to view such work of
art throu; advertising,, publicity, aud other means." “he; bcd a tooth st the
Sonoma-Narin County Fadr; Christo has addressed art classes in colleges al
over the stste; and there have been Valley Curtain shows st ali the major
museums in tie Bas AYcas and in sreestone, aul Wischs Dat. Olp ic te wer O. SC tort
Froese: .'t
gsiae from t':s ~roblems the lence will cause those of us who are unwitting
Victims alongs its route, the sence WILL cause the county ,roblers thet it
should not even cansider undertakin;. The last aniual report for the Corp=—
Jretioneti lod .ebruary Ll, L975, states that the teteal capital cf ths Cono—
Oretion was o,62,309.COe. T am aware o: the bonaing aid incuvance policies
suoplipGebe tis a,-plicant; however, what, specificali~, and thom, specilieala
iS Sov sG4 (vhat is not covered? Will the Corporation file bankruptey and
the County be left liuble? The County will be liable in case of eccident
and becone a party in any liabilit;.
iy view or 1G tact that there Nuc been ver, Tittle testins wien etuazes
done in Sonora County or “isrin County, how can tine Soard judge the inpeust
pycperly% Thsre are no wind velocity measurements for Sonoma County (es
Pheer eT OLS moirked 15. 4 suste, “ind #rea, Tor Our Miles. ac, be, pDepanmine
ef #16 escent of Mecham Till, that should have been mersured), no mention of
fits sumeervs rains no Pnvestisi. 0: trie) uncertrGad rod. oon Licdepth
mialjysois of the marine communities present, the whole course was not walked
out for floral and faunal studies, tne Inabllits to identify rare or endansex
plant species in SGeptomber (the dormént period), "since riost mammals «roa
aocturnal, a complete list would rasult only after considerable trapping
and/or netting" (Pase 174), and since the emjinssring: tests were done in
Celorado, tis is not a complete environmental impact rerort and I cwesticn
or 2 competent decision can be made.
the SiR, as ma.t rerorts filed in rejards to the ivence, j0e8 to creat lent
to emphasizes the teriporary nature of the project; the catastrophies thet maj,
occur (fire, addidents, atc.) will NOT be temporary.- The report also goes
into detail about the benefits to be gained by allowing the project--pifts t
tne county, meterials to tre landowners, etc. Is a truck worth the risk of
a 4O-mile traffic jam, abundant law suits, end risking even one perscn's liie
either througsh accident or the inability of emerzency equipment to respond
in anr emargency, fonce-caused or otherwise? 5 La - z
Sezer
Lois lie Raymond, $17 Mecham oad, Fataluma, Caliiornia 94952
Cc: 3oerd of Sunervisors
ge 2 Sonoma County Planning Department uOovember 20, 19°75
res Draft ELR on Running i'encs
ne folbwing are specific references within the environmental impact report
son which the foregoing conclusions:have been based:
Lease read the entire SUMMARY; though a great point is made of distinguishing
tween "local short-term impact and the maintenance of long-term productivity"
he risks and inconveniences to residents alon: the route (except the ranchers
ad other who have granted the easements, as they have had a choice) are man
nd not ones to be taken lightly--congestion, fire danger, air-quelity
npairment, noise, plus additional fuel consumption, not to mention the dangé
f delay of any emergency service vehicle.
he report makes a point of emphasizing that there will be no costs to the
Ounty. Has the county been reimbursed for tre hearing rlready held and the
mes to be held? Has the county been reimbursed for its cocpsration in the @
1R?
Iso, what will happen to tne holes that '‘wve been backfilled with sand (Y)
ith the first heavy rains?
ge ll, paragraph 5 , last sentence: "It is not the intent of the applicant
0 encourase maximum visitation to the Running Fence." Please see the attached
opy of the articles of Incorporation of Running i'esnce Corporation, page 3d,
rticle 4, first paragraph, last sentence, "and to attract groups and |)
ndividuals to view such work of art throu:sh advertising, publicity, and
ther means." This year, three shows were planned for the largest pay Aroa
rt l'useums to correspond with the fence showing.
arae & = The Fence is scheduled to be built on a paved, ceeded, road
aserentx in the Happy acres subdivision, so how can it "break at roads"?
iso, the lest centence in this paragraph, "little space is expected beneat
he wence exce;t in vers uneven groung or over ravines"=-what happened to (o)
he 15" ground clearance promised lust time aroung for the passabe or field
ammals??
age 15 ''yere is no mention of how the cable will be brought in and vos OGL)
e@ 16 Isn't Jameson Truckin; in Petaluma? anyway, there is no mention o
he wind velocity necessary to relense the i'abric from the bottom hooks.
Boe So para. 2: “possibly bringing increased temporary economic activity
O Valley vor@"}-Valley ord is a very small town; it will accomodate cu
VERY PEW poople, not thousands in any one daj.
arae 6 “as the Runnin; wence is not a commercial venture"--thsre must ° 7
wO ssts of values for determinin;, comnercial ventures; ert and non@art ?
nd Fepper oad J
ace 538 COMMUiITY ATTITUDES Omits rural residents who are not dairy owners,
Ongervationists, agencies, Bay Area residents, or art experts or ce)
t also mentions that Belvedere, in southern (¢) Marin County stated its
apport of Running rence, but neglects to mention that Cotati expressed
Oncern.
A2@ £5257 There is no mam mention of the proposed subdivision for Mecham @)
ae 40 a) Neglects to mention that the students who sttend Dunham School @)
2 not have bus service.
Paze 6 Sonoma County Planning vepertment fiovemnber 26, 1975
rez Draft EiR on HXunning lence
Pace 40 & 41 Fires As there are almost 600 fires in the Livision of Gi
Forestry's area inthe Lest th@ee weeks in Septemper nomally, the thought
of them trying to respond to those normally incurred at this tine or year
on congested roads is really frightening.
Pave 42 a) ii "As this event holds the potential for causing treiftic congestio
on the rural roads in this area, 4t is possible that the school buses (see no
on pace two of this summary regardin, Dunham School), bearing chiluren to a
from schools, would be da@layed or prevented from keeping their schedules.
such a disruption so affected the students in the area, I WOULD CCHSDTLTELESA
SIGNIFICANT TERPORARY IMPACT ON U%E shia EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.
(b}
Pepe 45 negarding the water supplyf Petaluma has had voluntery water rationin
in the summer; a two week drain on the water supply by visitors coula hm Qg)
their supply drastically.
d) "2.5 cubic feet of solid wastes would be produced each day by the worke
themselves." (2!
Tu::2 44 first parae "49 to 80 CUBLC YARDS of solid wextes could be dispose ke
or in the area."
e) SIRE PAOT“CTION 1 "The use& of a motor driven vehicle on the ary grasslan
area ercates a 2otential for fire." ihe responsibility for handling a fire
would rest on the tire depsrtment serving the area in whic the tire vuccured.
ii. "The increase in number of jereons and vehicles in this :roa, dvring the
season «hen tne grass is dry and the fire danger fenerrklly is high, compofn
the fire uanser and increases the chance that the fire department would te 2
called upon."
TOW Cal #IRE (OR aNY BMERGW..CY BUC IPiai?) ReSPOND Oh CONTERSTb, cas BPR vat
t) PCLICE FRCTHCTICHN 100 monitors (on motorcycles?) monitoring tralfic, Ge
protecting privete property, passing out free fabric samples and panphists%%
=) "PE MUNGER O# AUTOS O4 UNE ROAD COULD INWIBIT SWIFT SERVICH BY sNERGggox
VEFICLSS." BLP} ELEY eD
Chemical toilets end waste containers at stopping points “@
:) Leen visitors frou smoking by means of signing and other connunic: tion? Qt
3) “MRar eC CUNLD BE Goi OLLED TO ENasis LSE OF TIE RCaD BY ni, alBlUGaiiCk
Li Uaoss wa" wi) biv e.cY. TOW??? With traffic slowed or stopped in vach cirgeti
on narrow, tvO-lane roads, most of which have ditcheg on each sides G9
= S aa eenee considered vhat will happen if the milk trucks aro wiabl
AC nS Caeicien bl CG
© SM |
[le=ss sec the Copy of the Jast annual lieport, for “unnigs ;
deses ne * as hier L Bg acnce Corporetion
MAAC Oy Mb shi State of Illinois, tiled Februery 11, 1975, which antes the
total capital of the Corporation is 451, 800.00. ‘Wet will happen when law
suits sre filed as w result of this project? Will Sonoma County be liable?
Bee 4 Sonome County Planning Lbepertthaat ovenber 25, 1975
rez Jrart #iR on Running Fence
base 04 ro,srding the Happy acres Subdivision, two homeg (317 and 5192 hMecheam)
are not to »e sepurated from the fence by the noarest ride line, amixkx «s
the ridge ceases to be where it intersects Wambold Lane. (at the soerd of
Supervisors hearin, in lerch, Hr. nayfetz presented a map of the Fappy #cre
subdivision, statin; that there were four homes in the tract; et that time,
there were ten, there are now eleven.) “he two hoes on the noneridge line
sides of .ambold Lane have a clear view of Mechan Hill, so both cloge in and
pancramic views will be altered.
= @1 The treific manaseneat plen SNULLD TAVE BEEN included as «
of tie Mik. If approval for the sence is wranted without Stig, LibesS OM
4 leck of preplanning on everyone's , uit.
@
pac.os 7Yo-75 “4,211 gallons of auto fuel per 1,000 visitors?? What a weste
oF a dwindling resoursed and an estimeted 4,600 osullons to be wed in
sOnstruction and removal?
6)
Fase 89 "the shert period allowsu for an investigation of the intertiael
are@a Oovietee an; in-depth analysis km of the marine comniunities present
e
pace Ol last para. - “the wiole course of the route was not Valkea ovt."™
V@
fase 99 = last paragraph - “trong reconendat ion Tor « subsequent fiel
purvey to be carried out ink the sprins of 1976."
@
acs 125 = the miti,ation conclusions ure bseseu on the project beim aone
urang the “dr, season". The “dry cernson" ves very unprecichable in TOO
vith mofsurable rain occuring each month.
@)
‘ope 127 ‘Wind velocity figures for the €:n vrencisco airport? No wind
jelocity taken in Sonoma County, or particularly the "Petaluma ‘ind Gap?"
secham Hill, on tiighway 101, is maker marked ss a gusty wind areal
®
fies 1256-160 usiniall figures for Senta nosa? No mention of the summer
fains this yeard (Cr heavy rains lete in the epring, or the wind starn
moar: Octocer «)
eS 1eln166 any increese in dust impact und auto im exhaust impact on
dir wuality snould be discouragedt
ases lé7-141 any increese in noise is inexcuasble. 43)
56 1459"% Which (increased trafiic) may, however, alfect treffic movement
e iar sout* us “ovato on ifreeway 101, and beyond.™ tt é
ece 174 “xeSince most marmale are nocturnél, a complete list ad result
5 - . / :
mly efter considsrable trapping and/or netting."
6 i8 - the place where my house should be marked is marked a viewpoint
mo a havard.
aoe 139 - fara. 6 , "Along Stony Point Road, there is ample shoulaer crea
er autos to stop for viewing and for photographing the rence..." This must
© 4 ulii:ferent Stony Foint than that parallels the freeway from P luna Blvd.
orth to Mecham oad.
baze 5 Sonoma County Flannin, vspartment riJovemoar 26, 1975
rez Draft E1R on liunning lence
as 172 - 196 This "guided tour" seems to as:une that cars can park on
ants
ce z
any paved shoulder area, ten pull out into traiiic without casuing Ge)
erobleus.e %7?
Fazges 197 - 212 Several things have been omitted from this section.
I) Stony Foint Koad from Gravenstein Hichway to HMecham Noed was under
construction durin; summer 1975; the trai.ic mwas grectly decreased due
to the construction.
2) Says no numbers were available for trai:ivic on &tony Foint cn -unaags.
The treific on Stony Pt. increases on weekends, primarily from vchiclss
travellin., to the uump on Mecham Jioad.
>
6) Wo traffic counts for Mecham itioad? a fairly good source is the Centra
Refuse UVig~osal Site, with repper Koad's count added ior throusn traffict
4) 1f 10,C00 people viewed the Valley Curtain in it's 2-nours of hanging,
perhaps the expected "worst case analysis” is way off.
morrison, Colorado..."
CY
Page 254 trnwex “Yast Woe2 was conducted at Soda Lal:e, near tha town ee
oO
( onie Worvbor. pae& $_ 4s
: an es %
= :
Sita oy
‘ ee gee een : eee — f e j X
zm 3 wity ees sae ire Raine Aa SS
oe a ¥ awh, SC oo a ae ae oS co? ee
a oe io oma —y> WEP ae x aera rg :
oN oe wo Swe om cope YO = SAN,
aE A ~ se S iy o S “ :
SSO ty a Be ey
ie)
Ned
=~
a, ofas 2e
44 n
cH ga ‘
‘Toaiktoudpentinsr fie wearals Sl Come Geert:
ass Fay 5, aebiler ie: fe Vosceigteullion (tte yatgned wWidl i vig Sectl t, se
SESS EY (SUETALI ¢ CORPORATION _
Aavetanfiidintil if hte: of Worley of wb ble Meese thor QU yb lee
_ January BD. S921, asfrovited b Cie THE GUWNESE
Mees Ge. Sie
CORPURATION ALT 4 il Hee tact infowafuly 13 HT GAVE.
o Vow Leer ne; Ii PRP ieee bp Lop 6p toll Lette AY Ea noes
tee hated ystaste ba els, lecudive: fect
ty, by wihieol lie fsb VUsel HUE lop litte
srccsporatinyeenttotted the alo ty ie Diltcles ip: fucey Cyficliian
tf teupecsaid cylin. Hi
ea Cestimany Wheres’, We lo bel iy han ontbeusety | 4
heaffced le Gaal bel ble Cela Vena ;
Dnetitee Clips fp Sp nya thes “f_ Eth
; aay: of ¢ Senuary AL) SIO antl’
(SEAL) tlie. Yule nee neenfl We Unvted Hales
} Meone: handeedand. to eae
4 ; ¥ >
siies - ¢
oo
: SECRETARY OF STATE.
'
eee eeeegeet aaa
ARTICLE FOUR — ee
The purpose or purposes for which the corporation ‘s organized are:
To secure the appreciation of the fine arts, and the elevation
of standards of taste and artistry by creating, developing,
constructing, building, and erecting a work of art for public
exhibition, and to attract groups and individuals to view such
work of art through advertising, publicity, and other means.
To buy, sell, deal in or with works of art of any and all kinds,
whether originals, copies, or others, and any and all kinds of
personalty, wares, merchandise, or goods, either as principal or
agent.
To ee cnese or otherwise acquire, lease as lessee, invest in,
hol use, lease as lessor, encumber, sell, exchange, transfer,
and aGepase of property of any kind or description or any
interest thereon. 4
To advance money to and enter into contracts and arrangements of
all kinds with builders, property owners and others, but not have
the power to discount bills or notes or to buy or sell bills of..
exchange or to exchange in the business of bonding. ’
Bae Beas ARTICLE FIVE
on
PARAGRAPH 1: The aggregate number of shares which the corporation is authorized to issue is_200Q
divided into____QOM€ _class@& The designation of each class, the number of shares of each class, and the
par value, if any, of the shares of each class, or a statement ees the Snares of any class are waco bg valued
are as follows:
Series Number of Par value per share or statement that al
Class _ _ (Mf any) Shares are without par value sis
common 2000 $25.00 per share. - ows
PARAGRAPH 2: The preferences, qualifications, limitations, restrictions and the special or relative rights i in
respect of the shares of each class are:
FORM UCA-55
(Do not write in this space)
Date Paid /. - -< er
Z SREP,
License Fee $
Franchise T'ax $
(File in Duplicate) cae ee $25, &
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
TO THE
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
o749 23
Valley Curtain Corporation
east ore a a
To
J EAN. WV TLEWIs we
Secretary of State
Springfield, Illinois
The undersigned corporation, for the purpose of amending its Articles of
Incorporation and pursuant to the provisions of Section 55 of ‘‘The Business
Corporation Act” of the State of Illinois, hereby executes the following Articles
-
of Amendment: fe cee coe
a : |
ARTICLE FIRST: The name of the corporation is:
Valley Curtain Corporation a ees
{ :
|
ARTICLE SECOND: The following eo or amendments were
adopted in the manner prescribed by ‘‘The Business Corporation Act’’ of the
State of Illinois: Resolved, that Article One of the
Articles of Incorporation of this corporation be
and it hereby is amended to change the name of
this corporation from Valley Curtain Corporation
to Running Fence Corporation, and should read as !
follows: “Article One. The name of the corporation ie]
hereby incorporated is Running Fence Corporation."
--
ae yy 1¥
THE BUSINESS CONPCRATION ACT
jue ANNUAL 2ZPORT —EsgreapoTsk
MICHAEL J. HOWLETT
a
TELER
SECRETARY CF STATE OF ILLINOIS USE TYPEWRITER IN EXECUTING
po THIS REPORT WHICH MUST BE
FILED PRIOR TO MARCH 1st.
1.) CORPORATE NAME RUNNING FENCE CORPORATION sf
eeeeea AGENT % SCOTT HODES 696 42 |
* REGISTERED OFFICE 4160 WN LASALLE SUITE 38900
city, state, zipcope =CHICAGOs ILLINGIS 60601
2.) THE NAME AND OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE OFFICER EXECUTING THIS REPORT IS:
SCOTT HODES, SECRETARY
(PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, TREASURER, RECEIVER, ASSIGNEE, OR TRUSTEE}
3.) THE ABOVE CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF____Jilinois ss, pursuANT TO
PROVISIONS OF “THE BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT" OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING REPORT:,
4.). THE NAMES AND RESPECTIVE ADORESSES OF ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS ARE: IF OFFICERS ARE DIRECTORS. SO STATE.
FERIL-AS
FILING FEE $15.00
NAME OFFICE NUMBER AND STREET city STATE
Jeanne-Claude Javacheff 48 Howard St., New York, New York _
Scott -Hodes 180 N. LaSalle St., Chicago, Ill. |
Jeanne-Claude Javacheff 48 Howard St., New York, New York _
Christo Javacheff Ass'lt Treasurer | 48 Howard St., New York, New York
-Jan van der Marck Vicel President | 48 Howard St., New York, New York
Jeanne-Claude Javacheff DIRECTOR 48 Howard St., New York, New York
“Christo Javacheff 48 Howard St., New York, New York
DIRECTOR
5.) THE FOLLOWING !S A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THE CORPORATION (S ACTUALLY ENGAt
To erect a work of art for public exhibition and to generally deal in
works of art and art Supplies.
6.) THE AGGREGATE NUMBER OF SHARES WHICH THE CORPORATION HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE (AS OF PRECEDING QECEMSER 31s
a .
> Pav seee
ig 2/000 ITEMIZED AS FOLLC
SERIES NUMBER PAR VALUE PER SHARE OR STATEMENT T
CLASS (IF ANY) OF SHARES SHARES ARE WITHOUT PAR VALUE
Common None 2,000 $25.00 2 oe 8 a
7.) THE AGGREGATE NUMBER OF ISSUED SHARES (AS OF PRECEDING DECEMBER 3)st) ao Rie av aceaees ws
. ¥ * ns =~ ye
oe ane baa
ec a oe a 2 eS ee FE a R= TEMIZEOUASTEOLIN
SERIES NUMBER PAR VALUE PER SHARE OR STATEMENT T
CLASS (IF_ANY) OF SHARES SHARES ARE WITHOUT PAR VALUE
Common None 1,036 $25.00
©.) THE AMOUNT OF STATED CAPITAL AND PAID-IN SURPLUS STATED CAPITAL $ 227900
AS OF DECEMBER 31st IS:
PAID-IN SURPLUS $_25,900
51,800
READ INSTRUCTIONS ON BACK OF FLYER BEFORE FILLING IN. TOTAL $
ene meer eee ee Oe - — t=, §. : -
% —~ -~+--+ tow oy 20 ee ce me: Srcenernes ote memnpemes Som es tee Soe ee teem en yt ee
SONOMA COI'NTY
PPEAINNING DEPT.
Distieabe r¢ i = q 17 M
© - ey i £4 63 317 Mecham 8d
da 8 Petaluma, Calif
a en ee @ ES a
E LE icy C C9 YY... 239 1975 s
Tea PyCIT te 7
DO NOT REMOVE IRECEIVED
sonoma County
ard of Zoning Adjustments yuma, OO ae agS
2555 Mendocino Ave. HOVE2 2 1903
Ja Calif. 5
pee poeta calit LASNING DEPARTMENT ¢
P
COUNTY OF CONOMA
lerein are my thoughts and comments on the report prepared for the Running Fence project.
v%E: Running Fence Corporation Environmental Impact Report.
jummary Page 5 Construction noise "could produce levels that would strongly intefere
with both outdoor and indoor residential activities at some homes
along the route."
Noige levels caused by visitor traffic on local roads could increase
by 23 decibals - a 5 fold increase.
Jomment - This has been our contention all along and we feel, would constitute an upagceptabie
intrusion on our peace and privacy for an unneccesary project. @
Summary page 6 "Air Quality will change."
comment - Another unacceptable side affect of an unneccesayy project. (2)
Page 1 "The business activity of the Running Fence Corporation is to foster
public appreciation of fine art."
Comment - The articles of incorporation go on to say that this qoal, among others, is to
be attained by advertizement and other means to attain public notice and publicity.
Base 11 "No stopping or parking area has been proposed as part of the project."
"Tt is not the intent of the applicant to encourage maximum visitaticn
to the Running Fence."
Somment - They cannot eeconcile this statement with the paid publicity director or previous
statements that Christo wants controversy or the numerous museum appearances and
public speaking engagements ir 1975 in the Bay Area or the exibit in Freestone,
or the showing of the film "Valley Curtain" at public gatherings and employee
group meeting in Sonoma County and elsewhere. This statement is in conflict
with the corporations articles of incorporation on file in Illinois.
Page 12 Phases - Construction will take 5 month, exhibit in September and
a month to six weeks for take down.
Comment - Not so temporary as the impression Running Fence Corporation wishes left “@
Page 15 June - lists construction techniges.
Comment - No where does it mention what the neavy cable reels would weigh or what the
gross weight of the vehicle carrying the cable reels will be. They do not
© detail how the cable is to be anchored and pulled taut. There is no mention
of what cable expansion and contraction due to temperature fluctuation will
effect panel position and sag.
Page 19 Speaks of monitors and their duties.
Comment - If monitors cannot prevent trespass (they have little autherity to do so) and
(1 , call for help, how will the 3heriffs' Deputies respond on the clogged roads?
Will they abandon their traffic control duties?
Page 19 Motorcycle Monitors.
Comm - Are there to be 100 of these? Since they are to be equipped with spark arresters,
@ the assumption is that they are intending to run them cross ccubtry. NOIS#.
EROSION. Not mentioned in any report.
Page 33 Impact - "During the construction phase (starting in April 1976) and
during the removal phase (October 1976) the “unning Fence will not
be a visual barrier, due to the absence of the nylon panels."
Comment - We consider seeing a string of 18' poles marching off into infinity for 7 months
visual impact and personally intrusive as at this time, there are no utility
visible in the panarama to the rear of Happy (sic) Acres, from the rear cf our
home at 317 Mecham.
Page 33 - 3h They do not consider the project in conflict with the Williamson Act
because it is not a commercial venture.
Comment - There is nc way this can be considered other than as a commercial project.
It is the act of a Corporation. The project directly affects the market value
of the Corporations' principle owners' art work. See *4tpage 33, * page 9
and para 2, page 51.
Tne assets of the Corporation may at any time, revert to the principals, the
Corporation presumably pays wages to the Javacheffs 2nd certainly pays for
transportation, living and entertaining encountered while promoting the project
both here and abroad.
Our present understanding of the Williamson Act, section 51201.(N) ana section
.23.7(K) Para 3, is that it allows certain participating recreational use.
In light of the need to prevent wholesale trespass to forstall havoc across the
county and the applicants claims that the preject is inherently designed to be
simply viewed from a distance completly obviates the proscribed participatory
nature of such use. Further, the tenents of Open Space requirements, section
51201.(C), are to prevent blocking public view of rural areas. This proposal
js an apparent contradiction on these basis.
Page 39 Para 2 = Report claims that one community - Belvedere - stated it's
support.
Commept - Report fails to mention that the Cotati City Council voted opposition. Needless
a) te say, Cotati would feel the effects of the project much more than 3elvedere.
Page 0. Education Services
Comment - Note that school buses would be returning childeen to their homes at the height
of the traffic influx. Not mentioned is that students of Dunham School on
Roblar Rd. are driven by their parents as there is no bus service. How are
these people to function?
Page 0 Fire Protection
Comment - Most of the area is served by Division of Forestry. Stations at Graton, Santa
Rosa and Petaluma are all long runs from the subject area.
@D Under normal conditions there are almost 600 fires in the Division's jurasdiction
the last 3 weeks of September. The high probability of even more fires caused
by the influx of people, coupled with the increased response time caused by
traffic congestion consititutes an unnacceptable risk.
Page 2 Police Protection = States that the CHP would be assisted by the
Sheriffs Dept. should their assistance bg necessary for traffic flow.
Co - This section must be talking akout a sheriffs Dept other than Sonoma County.
@ We have been told by the Sheriffs office that "Traffic on Mecham Rd is not
our concern."
Page 2 Admits that traffic congestion may well delay or prevent school buses
from completing their scheduled runs.
Comment - This goes as well for those who must take their children to and from school
(5 (not mentioned), as well as mail delivery and other such service. (akso unmentioned)
Page hh ii - Anticipates 40 to 80 cubic yards of waste a day with signifigant
litter along the route.
Ht
Comment - Reiterates that public viewing from private property will not be allowed.” 6 )
Page hh Fire Protection ii = quote "THE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF PERSONS AND
VEHICLES IN THIS AREA, DURING THE SEASON WHEN THE GRASS IS DRY AND
THE FIRE DANGER GENERALLY IS HIGH, COMPOUND THE FIRE DANGER AND
INCREASES THE CHANCE THAT FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE CALLED UPON."
emphasis added.
Comment = Note that it corresponds with the month with the highest frequency of fire.
This is an unbelievable risk to suffer for no reason. The already admittedly
D congested road net, long response time for fire apparatus anc other emergency
equipment coupled with the increased need for such assistance is an undue risk
for the county to entertain.
#% table on page 1
44+see comments on Williamson act.
Page 6 Solid Waste - Calls for trash cans at stopping points along roadway.
Comment - Earlier, the re,ort stated that there are no plans for parking areas. This is
at contradiction. This report seems to conclude that where culverts go under
the narrow roads are good places for cars to stop.
( f) For cars to be pulling in and out of heavy traffic at these points is insane .
/ Traffic jams would become monumental and many people would misjudge these
narrow pull offs and end up in the ditch, compounding everyones problem.
First they say there are no plans for parking areas and now they say they
should put garbage cans in the parking areas.
Page 6 ee Fire vrotection
Comment = How ia hell are you going to "discourage" visitors from smoking? @@
Page 7 Emergency Medical Service - "Traffic could be controlled to enable
use of the road by and ambulance in case of emergency."
Co - This is patently untrue and unworkable. If the roads have cars in both lanes
(fo) and there is no shoulder, there is simply no where for an ambulance to zo.
Page 48, L9 Economics - Para 1, states the price for milk is good. Para 3, Page 49
refers to income in 1969, the rest of the page refers to expenses in
1974-75. Para 3, page 48 says the price of milk is low.
Co t =- Cost factors and income from the same years should be considered, You shoulda't
PD pick poor price years for that and high expenses for a different year.
Page 51 Para 2 = Would have us believe that the Javacheffs averaged $4,75
income the last 2 years.
Comment = How this is appropriate in an EIR is beyond me but, can this be the same people
who fly to and from the east and west coasts and Europe?
The money to entertain large groups of people is coming from somewhere. If
they are on Corporation business all the time, the Corporation can pay all
their costs. This is convieniant since they own the Corporation.
Paragraph 3 tells us the same Corporation has lost money the last years.
In fact, $229,430. If all of Christo's works go to the Corporation and the
Corporation has lost money every year and Christo is personally poverty stricken
then how can they continue +9 function?
Pare 53 Impact - Correctly describes it as intrusivg, blockage or partial
blockage of close in and panaramic views.
Comment - We agree, and INTRUSIVE blockage of partial blockage of close in and panaramic
views.
Page 54 Para 2 talks of homes on Meacham (sic) Rd. States the fence would
be over the ridge line from the homes and therefore it is possible
the top of the fence would be visible from them.
Comment = Our home is on Mecham 2d. (317) We could see the "Fence" from top to bottom.
There is no ridge line between our home and the "Wall." We have an excellent
24 view of Mecham hill. We have an unimpeded view all the way to Sonoma Mountain.
Destroying our view damages the value of our home in that it deprives us of
the benefit arid enjoyment of one of the best features of our home.
TRAFTIC/CIRCULAT ION/PARK ING
Note: All freeway turn offs mentioned lead to Stony Point Hd, This in turn leads to
Mecham Xd. Mecham Rd. now carries upward of 1500 cars and trucks to and from the
dump each weekend day. This is a 9 hour figure and means 3,000 vehicles per day
in addition to any through traffic.
Page 60 Estinates 55% of traffic taking Denman Flat off ramp.
15% Gravenstein Hwy.
15% West Railroad.
Total of 85% of visitors using these three routes, all leading to
Stony Point and then Meaham Rd.
would be attempting left turns onto Mecham Rd. Stony Point road would reach
@) Combined with the normal traffic load at that time of year, too many pevple
capacity sooner than anticipated.
Wd
age 41 areas Concur
Page 65,66 Lists traffic flows of roads except Mecham.
Comment - Does not state where count was made on Stony Point. Assumes weekend traffic
count is the same as weekday. In fact, Weekend traffic is 2 or 3 time weekday .*
*convers&tions with J. Conaway, Refuse Disposal, Mr. Head, Public Works, counts
taken at Refuse Disposal sites last 3 years)
Page 69
Comment - Rolice officers, flagmen, monitors (on motercycles?), signs all ove place.
What a mess.
Pase 69 Traffic levels of service
Comment = Stony Point and Mecham road are at a level B or C right now on weekends.
Qe) We get 70+ garbage trucks each weekday "ow.
un
Pare 86 (si) Recraclonall . Lhes fears is being provosed 25 a recreational
= mS
Wee on Less cul oI LEneSeSkVesr.
Comment = quate, "In brief, the area, because of it's location and isolsticn, now
little recreational potential. hy) Uhes- scan! sehave 2¢ ooth wwave- g
PE ome Briostan
=
Somment.= The potential for erosicn has been yratly urderpiaved. There is nc mintian
3° of the effect rain at the tine of the showing would have, There is nc mention
5f£ ths effect rain would have on the removal cf the project.
PASS SQ Warde
Jomment - Wind maasurments from San Fransisco Internationa: ea Om are weed, Wind would
sertainiy he different ir the "Petalums Wind Sap. It is the job cf the sonpany
sonducting the ZI to take such reedings, not to go tc a source O01 miles away
it fir their information. The distance of the airport from the ccast is a non
sequitur. The airper: °s beside the bay and <n the far side of t*e soast ranze
from the acean. All of the wind measurements are suspe~*
Pase 128,129 Rainfall
Comment = We hat measurable rain in June, July, August and Saptember in 1975, There i
no mention of this and nc mention of effect cr mitizgation propczed.
Base 253 States Little dust from constructiscn because s-otns wile vee moist,
vomment, = Nat co, the: state earlier constructicn will begin cnlv whem gr:unai ic dey. (33 Y
Mow 3s
.
‘ment = Neo mention of truck and other vehicle traffic along Mecham XQ,
Paps 1g tYrarfie counts
comment = §rastic soins te the dum= were availiable, es)
ayaa “um cunt weekends on Stsnv Pcimt. States leve? C now
ame *vafri
eV a
en DW te tra atc isees) OOO peTacdav.
on a goed fali dav. (36 )
Final somment. - Test conducted in Solorads on the chance sn earth disruvti-n in the
failure may be missieading. Sonoma County is not the same as Uclorado,
Reaction may be entirely different here.
37 The relative value of "Art" is sutjective. An "Artist" eheuld ast force ig
concept of Fart" on others and we fee) that is the case: ss this instiise
Mozt nespie would be drawn net ty art but hy the unusia:., ths bizzare;
2» - Mecham Ba itself has 3,009 vehicle
Are
s Orme
m4
a
we would not be able to svoid this thing, it's construction or the hazard
created by crowds of zawkers.
Ronald he Raymond
Robert L. Holtzer, M.D.
WRERT-8-BESWVERS- FFB.
PuBLiC HEALTH OFFICER
SONOMA COUNTY
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
3313 CHANATE ROAD
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95404
November 26, ve 0 N 0 M hk COUNTY
PLANNING D : Pale
~s
" eas ahi oe ae ee 3 “4
George Kovatch, Director Wes re W ( eee 1
Sonoma County Planning Department ect’ la 43 ee ERR eens aad
2555 Mendocino Avenue we att ees gees sea eee
Santa Rosa, California 95401 oh ie t Bg meee
&, iad gisiod NS os ca SF
a Pt fe trea SeeSoe
Dear Mr. Kovatch: tg ye SE Rae Se re
Neots wee rem hag 8 \/ che"
had 3 an da th shel ws” te us
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report
and use permit extension for
Running Fence
(File: 706.4-7772)
We have reviewed the subject EIR and use permit. Our remarks will address each
separately, beginning with the EIR:
Environmental Impact Report
In relation to our basic concerns of public health, we find two points in the report
to be inadequate.
1. p. 43, Liquid Waste Treatment
The EIR addresses only potential effects to public sewerage systems
and does not reflect the fact that the restaurants and service stations
in rural areas along the route of the Fence utilize septic systems for
sewage disposal. Particularly in Bloomfield and Valley Ford, the use
of these systems, which have limited capacities for large numbers of
visitors, may cause serious overloading leading to malfunction and
sewage discharge to the ground.
2. p. 46, Fire Protection
The report mentions that "farmers along the route have offered to make
available their spray rigs filled with liquid" for fire protection.
(2) Such a proposal is highly improper due to insecticide residues in the
rigs. Water mixed with these residues and then sprayed in areas of
fire fighting would potentially expose large numbers of people to possibly
harmful if not lethal insecticide levels.
Use Permit Extension
Although we have some concerns about adequate restroom facilities for viewers,
particularly if large numbers of people are involved, we are also aware that
there may be no practical or enforceable means of providing such facilities,
particularly in the rural areas. Therefore, we can oniy address those items =
which can actually be required of the applicant in terms of use permit conditions.
George Kovatch,. Director
Sonoma County Planning Department
November 26, 1975
Page 2
If this application is approved, we rece. mend it be subject to the toilowing
conditions:
1. Toilet and handwashing facilities approved by the Public Health Ofiicer
shall be available to workers during all phases ot the proceed:nes.
Potable drinking water shall also be provided.
ho
Provision for removal of litter generated by workers during ai!
phases and roadside litter generated by viewers during the vicwing
phase shall be made by the applicant and such plans shall be sutject
to approval from the Public Health Officer and the Department cf
Public Works.
Enclosed herewith is copy #54 of the draft EIR.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT L. HOLTZER, M.L.
Public Health Officer
IHASIIAR We WENRTETINS dG 5 Wass
Director of Environmental Heaith
LNBind
eee Riuhilicne Wesaks
SG Jac Vricen veSa DiS tet, Sanmstar lan
Ce ivekran Precher. Rass, Distalct Sanitarian
Coy vane Evans, WRG. Land Use Special zst
DEPARTMENTSOF ENVIRONMENTALSSERVICES
COUNTY OF MARIN M
Civic Center, San Rafael, California 94903 Tom Severns. Director
Tedephone: (415) 479-1100 William L. Desmond. Director Environmental Controt
Joel E. Rubsy, Environmenta! Heanng Officer
November 25, 1975
Mr. Tom Cordill, Environmental Administrator
Sonoma County Planning Department
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, California 95401
RE: Christo Running Fence EIR
Dear Tom:
This response is to certify that Marin County has accepted Sonoma County as the
Tead agency in the ''Running Fence'' project as described in the October 23, 1975
letter to ESA, the project EIR consultant.
Secondly, Marin County staff has reviewed the EIR as to adequacy and the report
appears to cover the major concerns of the Marin County Planning Department ana
this division. The consultant, in accordance with your instructions and CEQA
Guidelines regarding ''jurisdiction by law' contacted concerned Marin staff.
Mr. Donald Dickenson as assigned planner replacing Kathy Ohlson, has further
reviewed the EIR to coordinate same with the ongoing Marin approval process.
The following review and procedure is furnished by Mr. Dickenson to provide you
guidance as to our process:
1) The draft EIR and the conditions imposed at the time the design review
application was approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisors on February
4, 1975, appear to adequately cover the major concerns of the Marin County
Planning Department relative to this project.
2) On September 22, 1975, the Marin County Planning Director granted the Running
Fence Corporation a one year extension to the design review approval by tke
Marin County Board of Supervisors. This extension will allow the project to
take place in the Fall of 1976, the precise dates to be determined later by
the Planning Director. The extension grants no variance from the conditions
imposed as part of the approval dated February 4, 1975.
3) As a result of the recent request to alter the route of the fence to move it
further from Estero Americano and Estero San Antonio, a design review amend-
ment will be required for the project. Processing of this application wil]
begin shortly as a staff item, with no action to be taken until Sonoma County
has certified the EIR. Except for those items required as conditions of the
design review approval, this design review amendment will be the final action
required by the Marin County Planning Department prior to application for a
building permit.
Tom Cordil}
November 25, 1975
Page 2
With your permission, we will keep one copy of the draft EIR. Would you please
forward one copy of the final EIR for decision-making at this end? Please
advise if we can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Bees Vs
Tom Severns, Director
Department of Environmental Services
TS:hl
Enclosure
cc: Don Dickenson, Planning Department
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
100 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
SPNED-E 18 November 1975
SONOMA COUNTY
PLANNING DEPT.
Mr. Thomas E. Cordill Rey oo os
Environmental Administrator oy) iis cg ie Px Hl
Sonoma County Planning Department te o's ; o. So ae: fs is 3:
County Administration Building : eee Mee oN TQ rm
WE kia ema i STY att Seat nema ers
2555 Mendocino Avenue lager cise ees (es rs
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 eT cass gbtoe act ce Neen ceeeeery
5 TAS DERE
eo Ou di isnkiaak ha oi W a
Dear Mr. Cordill:
Reference is made to your letter of 10 November 1975 forwarding the
Draft EIR on the Running Fence Project.
As indicated in your letter of 23 October 1975 to Mr. Paul Zigman, copy
attached, the documents mentioned that pertain to the proposed activity
represent, in general, this agency's concern with regard to the project.
We have no objection to the County of Sonoma being the lead agency.
On page 21 of the Draft EIR, it is stated in part "...the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers granted (a permit) for those portions of the originally
proposed project under their (jurisdiction)..." This statement is
incorrect. An application was received for the original project on
31 October 1974. Public Notice 75-315-053 was issued 7 March 1975
announcing the project. The application was subsequently withdrawn
1 July 1975. A permit for the proposed project was never granted by
the Corps.
It appears that this new proposed activity requires Corps of Engineers
authorization for structures or work in navigable waters of the United
States. Attached please find a copy of our pamphlet, "Applications for
Department of the Army Permits for Activities in Waterways." If you
require additional information on this question, please contact Mr. Hans
Lamm of our Regulatory Functions Branch at 415-556-5966.
[Rpm oe em ene
‘
Ea oe ee =
US Rese ecco y oan Comic
:
\ ‘
t i
[
4
OLA GCPARTRENT
bea AF fon!
Koch Byroodam in Your Future With TT °C
SPNED-E |
Mr. Thomas E. Cordill 18 November 1975
As requested, we are returning the Draft EIR herewith. Please provide
this office with a copy of the Final EIR when available.
This office appreciates the opportunity to review your report and we have
no further comment at this time.
Sincerely yours,
a ye act
3 Inclosures Heke PAPE JR:
As stated Chief, Engineering Division
III. ERRATA AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
A. INTRODUCTION
This section revises and updates the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) on the proposed Running Fence by correcting errors in
the original report and by responding to all comments on the DEIR.
Each response is keyed to indicate which comment it answers.
All material in this section should be read as supplemental to
that in the DEIR. In cases of conflict, material in this Addendum
supersedes the information presented in the DEIR.
B. ERRATA (NOT MENTIONED IN COMMENTARY)
DEIR Summary, p. S-4. First line is start of a paragraph
(should be indented).
DEIR p. 99 ''e Freshwater Marshy or Vernally Wet Areas". Words
should be underlined.
DEIR p. 107, last paragraph. Underline "Openings for wildlife".
DEIR Figure 10, p. 115. Legend: Hatching for Franciscan
Assemblage (Kjfs) should be slanted in opposite direction, to match
that in Figure itself.
DEIR p. 147, paragraph 2 under No-Project Alternative, line 3.
Should read: ''....; the same would be true for county'*.
*Underlining denotes added or changed word.
DEIR p. 151, line 12. Should read "Biology, California State
College, Sonoma,...''*
DEIR p. 153, fine’ 13. Should read: “Harry N. Abrams, Inc. —-
Mr. Harry N. Abrams, Chairman.''*
G. RESPONSES
AS eRuch i. Coney,
Entire letter is a comment on the project, rather than the DEIR.
No response is required.
B. Lois Raymond, Chairman, Committee to Stop the Running Fence
Entire letter is a comment on the project, with no specific comments
on the DEIR. No response is required. Mrs. Raymond has commented
on the DEIR (Correspondence ''J'') in detail, covering the same points
raised an this letter. ‘See response to "J".
C. California Regional Water Quality Control Board -- North
Coast Region
Correspondence contains one comment:
C.1 - Cites special waste discharge prohibitions for non-point
sources, and suggests incorporation as additional mitigation
measure. Accordingly, the prohibitions (paraphrased in "'C.1"')
of the Regional Board's "Water Quality Control Plan, North Coastal
Basin 1-B''are hereby added to the mitigation measures on p. 126
(Water Resources) of the DEIR.
D. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Correspondence contains no specific comments on the DEIR. It indi-
cates ''From a soil erosion and sedimentation point of view, the
*Underlining denotes added or changed word.
greatest hazards seem to be from fire removing the ground cover and
causing erosion and resulting sedimentation as a result of winter
rains falling on bare ground.'' These potential secondary impacts
should be added in the appropriate places on pages 105 and 126 of
the DEIR. The standard mitigation measure of early reseeding of
slopes should be added also.
The commentator's statement that he feels the report is ''sufficient
and well presented'' is acknowledged with gratitude.
E. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
Correspondence contains no comments on the DEIR or on the project.
No response is required. See ''N'' and response thereto.
F. Jerome Tichenor
Correspondence contains essentially one comment concerning citation
of dates and references; in particular, it asserts that the opinions
of artists not in favor of the project are inadequately represented.
F.1 - The "Legal History of the Project'' section of the DEIR was
added to provide a brief background for the benefit of the reader.
It is not required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) or by the EIR-preparation guidelines of the California
Office of Planning and Research. Similarly, it is not required
that the DEIR incorporate every piece of documentation that is cited.
The project documentation alone would, if included, add hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of pages to the DEIR. As for the assertion that
the opinions of artists not in favor of the project are inadequately
represented, attention is called to the statement in the Community
Attitudes section of the DEIR (p. 38): ''Appendix letters have been
chosen to demonstrate various viewpoints; no attempt has been made
to indicate the frequency of occurrence of any viewpoint."" If
there was unconscious bias in the sampling of letters, it was
in favor of the opposition. Of the ten letters of opinion in the
DEIR Exhibits, three were in favor of Christo and/or the project;
seven were in opposition. ESA has on file some twenty-five letters
supporting Christo and/or the project, most from prestigious insti-
tutions, which were not included. Known letters of opposition (prior
to preparation of the DEIR) were in far smaller supply. Mr. Tichenor's
comment becomes part of the record, along with his ''poet's opinion."
Just as ESA has "'carefully avoided judging Running Fence as an art
object'' (DEIR, p. 30), we will refrain from artistic judgment of
Mr. Tichenor's poetic effort.
G. Joel W. Hedgpeth (Subject: Environmental Impact Report,
Running Fence, terrestrial phases. )
G.l1 - The commentator asserts that engineering tests performed in
Colorado may not be valid under the wind and soil conditions in
Sonoma and Marin Counties. While it is true that both wind and soil
conditions may be different, the comment is irrelevant, for the
following reasons. For a nylon panel (sail) of a given size, a wind
of a given speed and intensity will exert a total force on the panel
that can be estimated. The calculated force for the wind speeds for
which the breakaway features were designed provided the basis for the
crucial specification; namely, the designed anchor strength (including
soil strength). The vital point here is that if and when the fence
is being erected tn Sonoma and Marin Counttes, every anchor wuw7/1 be
tested in place, to a force of 7,000 lbs. (DEIR, p. 17, paragraph 2:
"These poles will be guyed laterally with cables attached to soil
anchors driven 36 inches below the surface and tested to working
load.'') Thus, if wind speeds in Marin and Sonoma Counties should
rise to the point at which (without a breakaway system) the anchors
would fail and disrupt the soil, then the top and side clips would
have released, allowing the affected nylon panels to fall and lie flat
on the ground. In other words, the anchors, tested in place to a force
of 7,000 lbs.,could never be exposed to such a force. If the system
is designed (and has been tested) to withstand 25 MPH winds, there is
no reason to make it fail (break away) at such wind speeds.
G.2 - Commentator objects to the failure to include in the DEIR the
cited letter by Margaret Azevedo, Chairman of the North Central
Regional Coastal Commission. See Response F.1 above for the applicable
response.
G.3 - Commentator asserts the EIR "is surprisingly inadequate in
essential documentation" (again, see Response F.1 above), and goes
on to impugn the ethics of the DEIR preparers. His commentary appears
to apply primarily tu the contribution of Dr. Welton Lee, produced
under contract directly with the Sonoma County Planning Department.
lor Dr. Lee's response, see Response H.3 following. For ESA's response,
it is sufficient to quote the applicable statement of the Code of
Ethical Practice of the Association of Environmental Professionals
(DEIR, p. iv): "IF PREPARING a document pursuant to the environmental
document process, I WILL...... Cite all sources, written and oral."
G.4 - The first mitigation measure suggested by the commentator is a
reduction in scale, the principal feature being a new Fence height
of 18 inches. Coming as it does from a respected and serious
scientist, this suggestion should be given the same kind of thoughtful
consideration that must have gone into its development.
G.5 - Dr. Hedgpeth's second suggested mitigation measure, a 25 MPH
breakaway feature, has been discussed under G.1 above.
G.6 - His third suggested mitigation measure, in sttu testing in
Marin and Sonoma Counties, has also been covered in G.1 above.
H. Joel W.Hedgpeth (Subject: Environmental Impact Report,
Running Fence).
H.1, H.3 and H.4 - Comments about Dr. Welton L. Lee's contribution
and methods have been responded to in Dr. Lee's letter to Mr. Tom
Cordill, attached. Nothing further need be said here.
H.2 and H.5 - Commentator asserts that the uniqueness of the ocean
portion of the proposed Fence route is established by the North Central
Regional Coastal Commission's approval of an application for status
"as a Federal Estuarine Sanctuary under section 312 of the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 for Tomales Bay and the coast
line to Bodega Head."" The following information about that application
and its implications was obtained via a telephone conversation with
Mr. Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director, North Central Regional
Coastal Commission, on November 26, 1975.
Concerning the question as to whether the coastal end of the
Running Fence would be in the proposed sanctuary: The proposal for
an estuarine sanctuary is in a pre-application, preliminary stage.
Detailed geographic mapping has not been done. The proposal is an
attempt to get the feeling of the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Office as to the value of the area (Dillon Beach to Bodega Head),
in the context of a limit of ten estuarine sanctuaries in the entire
United States. The emphasis is on protection of the estuaries them-
selves; this means that activities at some distance from the estuaries
proper could still come under consideration if they were to have
"spillover" impacts on the estuaries, but probably not otherwise.
Concerning the further question as to whether approval of the
estuarine sanctuary would preclude approval of the coastal portion
of the Running Fence: Establishment of the sanctuary would imply
regulation, not ownership. The sensitivity of the estuaries was
high before the (sanctuary) application, and remains high. Final
approval of the sanctuary would not ipso facto preclude approval of
projects such as the Rumming Fence. The major concern in the establish-
ment of a sanctuary is with projects having long-term, continuing
impacts; these include power plants, refineries, sewage outfalls, etc.
De
HOY 221979 cane
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORN‘A 94404 skiihe a5 A NE
COUNTY OF COHOMA
RECEIVE) / RECEIVED
Ic
November 19, 1975
Mr. Tom Cordill
Environmental Coordinator
Sonoma County Planning Department
County Administration Building
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Dear Mr. Cordill:
This letter is in response to the attached communication from Dr. Joel W.
Hedgpeth, dated November 16, 1975. I trust you will see to it that my response
is duly received by the Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments and the
other agencies to which Dr. Hedgpeth has sent copies. I would like to respond
to several comments made by Dr. Hedgpeth in order of their appearance in his
Netter.
In Paragraph 1, Dr. Hedgpeth states that the area in question is "...the
only area on the California Coast immediately between two active Marine
laboratories...." While this particular point has little bearing on my charge
which was to assess the environmental impact of the running fence on the inter-
tidal, I should comment that the Hopkins Marine Station and the Moss Landing
Marine Laboratories also fall into such a category. Depending upon one's
judgment of "immediately," one might also include the Marine facilities at
Long Beacn, Corona Del Mar and Scripps as falling into a similar category. Be
that as it may, Dr. Hedgpeth utilizes this information relative to a proposed use
of this particular swath of Coastline (Paragraph 2.) His statement that I was not
adequately informed of the present legal status of this portion of the California
coastline is perfectly correct. At no time was I ever informed of this matter,
either by legal council or by Dr. Hedgpeth or Dr. Smith in my short conversations
with them. I might add, however, that this information is of extreme importance
to those making the ultimate decision concerning the Running Fence proposal, but
in no way changes my assessment of the direct impact of the running fence on the
intertical area in question. Since only a very tiny fraction of the coastline that
Dr. Heczpeth mentions will be impacted at all, I see no reason to alter my
statements unless it can be adequately shown that this particular region is of some
special biological significance to the two Marine Stations in question. Indeed,
it appears that Dr. Hedgpeth may concur as he States in line 20 of Paragraph 2:
"Therefore, Dr. Lee's contention that this area is not unique is beside the point."
I suggest that Dr. Hedgpeth's statements regarding the legal status of this
area are indeed important to the ultimate decision but that they have no direct
bearing on my assessment of the impact on the intertidal region.
On the second page of his letter, Dr. Hedgpeth states: "I am sorry to
say that Dr. Lee's implication that I was consulted and concurred in his judgment,
and by implication, of the relative lack of effect of the project, is simply not
true and must be corrected."' Dr. Hedgpeth proceeds to outline that the
"consultation" was only a short conversation on the telephone. First let me say
that Dr. Hedgpeth was completely correct in stating that the "consultation" was
only a short telephone conversation. That was also true for Dr. Ed Smith, whom
Dr. Hedzgpeth mentions in his letter. On both occasions I] explored briefly the
feelings of these knowledgeable biologists relative to the impact of the fence on
the biology of the intertidal area in question. In each case I received no information
concernirg potential hazard to the intertidal area which I specifically requested,
and in both cases statements were made which indicated that there were no
overriding BIOLOGICAL reasons for worrying about the impact on this intertidal
region. Jt should be noted that the footnote states only that these biologists
concurred that the area was "not biologically unique."’ I believe the statement
made on page 154 of the Impact Report is true and accurate relative to my
conversations with these gentlemen.
I must emphasize one point which appears to continually get lost in the heat
of debate. I was asked to perform one strictly defined task, to assess the impact
of the running fence, as proposed, on the stability and biological integrity of the
immediate intertidal area where the fence would end. To the degree possible, I
have done that and I see no additional information which would change my present
assessment. However, I do see that many people may have strong objections to
the intrusion of the running fence, objections not concerning the biological impact
of the fence, but rather representing value judgments as to the aesthetics or
legality of the fence or concerning the "impact" on future decisions of a similar
nature. Many of these objections may be valid but they should be handled quite
separately from the consideration of the biological impact. I personally may or
may not have objections to the running fence based on my personal value judgments,
but that should not have any effect on my assessment of the biological impact.
Finally, I very much regret the implications made by the footnote on page 79
of the report. I did indeed "consult" with the biologists listed. These contacts
were brief as Dr. Hedgpeth stated, and I did specifically request information
which might bear upon the task Iwas given. In both cases, statements were
made which suggested that there was no reason to expect any Significant
biological impact on the intertidal region. I most certainly was in error in
not obtaining the explicit consent of these tvo biologists and apologize for
that oversight. In point of fact, I was requested to produce a list of "anyone"
I talked to regarding the work I was doing and accordingly provided the list
i given on page 154 of the Impact Report, without even a thought of obtaining
their express consent. This was an oversight on my part. I might also add
that at the time of the conversations I had no intent to use their names nor
had ever thought of such a matter. I also very much regret the implication
that my action was “unethical.” If oversight is unethical then I am guilty,
but I co wish to correct any improper implications which might be taken from
the "supplementary contact list" on page 154 and the footnote on page 79.
Iwould suggest that anyone having information directly bearing upon my
assessment should duly submit their information so that it can be utilized.
Contrary to Dr. Hedgpeth's implications, I am ethical and would hope that
if I have been mistaken in my assessment, that responsible biologists would
provide the appropriate information to make the necessary changes.
> a v
Sincerely, / /
vi Af, : / . ie
AY es awe
LN a
{ te = .
Welton L. Lee
,
,
cc Edmund H. Smith
JOEL tv. MESDGPeETTras
5460 Montecito Avenue, Santa Kosa, California 95404 © Telephone 707-539-1267
ENVIRONMENTAL AND £DITORIAL ANALYSIS
o-
—
Nov. 16 1975
Dr Welton Lee
California Academy of Sciences
San Franisco
Dear Welton:
Engosed you will find copies of cogsmnications to the Sonoma Countty
Board of Zoning Adjustments in the matter of the EIR for the Ruining
Fence projecte
In view of these, I would appreciate it if you could see your way
to writing to them that your use of ny rams_in this context was
without my specific consent or indication that you had such intention
in our recent telephone conversations S
Sincerely,
\
Jo 2 Hedgpeth
|
‘
!
/
cc SpMUND H. Smith
J. Mrs. Lois M. Raymond
Jets de2s Jeo, J24 and J-5°- These generail coments, ‘sone contaaning
a large number of points, are repeated in the subsequent comments
(J.6 et seq.); they are responded to at the appropriate points in
the following.
J.6 - Commentator asserts that the Summary makes a great point of
distinguishing between "local short-term impact and the maintenance
of long-term productivity.'' Consideration of this factor is mandated
by CEQA and by the Office of Planning and Research EIR guidelines.
The EIR does not take the risks and inconveniences to residents along
the route lightly; the extensive analysis of traffic impacts, for
example, bears this out.
J.7 - County costs for hearings on EIR's and on projects themselves
are presumed to be covered by fees imposed on the applicant;
there are standard procedures and fees for all such applications.
See DEIR, p. 51, first paragraph.
J.8 - Holes backfilled with sand should fare as well in heavy
rainstorms as the original soil; as noted on p. 126, DEIR, structure
removal plans call for seeding of disturbed areas and placement of
jute matting to stabilize the surface where necessary until revege-
tation takes place.
J.9 - Commentator notes an apparent conflict between the applicant's
stated position that it is not his intent to encourage maximum visi-
tation (Page 11, DEIR),on the one hand, and his advertising and
promotion program, on the other. [Note that in the enclosures to
Correspondence J (Section II above), only those pages related directly
to the comment have been included.] In response, several points
can be made.* First, the interested "audience" is that part of the
public that is interested in art and art events. Second, the appli-
cant points out that at the time of the Oakland Museum exhibit of
the Valley Curtain and the Running Fence in August, 1975, seven
other exhibits of his work were going on throughout the world.
Third, the publicity for such museum exhibits is controlled by
the museum, rather than the applicant.
*Jeanne Claude and Christo Javacheff, telephone communication,
November 30, 1975.
J.10 - Within the Happy Acres subdivision the Fence is to run along
a right-of-way that runs parallel to Meacham Road, under license
granted by the subdivider. Wherever the Fence crosses a road, paved
or unpaved, that is in current use, the Fence will break. The same
is true for known animal trails. Each nylon panel will be anchored
at two points between its supporting poles; thus on absolutely flat
terrain there would be no ground clearance for passage of small
animals. However, the usual terrain irregularities will provide
space for passage, in addition to that at Fence breaks.
J.11 - Cable will be brought in on cable trailers and unrolled from
cable reels.
J.12 - Jameson Trucking is in Petaluma, as the commentator states.
There is no plan to have the fabric release from the bottom hooks.
Therefore, it is irrelevant at which wind velocity such release
occurs. Once the top and side clips release, and the panels lie
flat, wind forces on the panels become inconsequential.
J.13 - The potential impacts on Valley Ford were noted in the DEIR,
on pages 191 and 210.
J.14 - The non-commercial (non-profit) nature of the Rumning Fence
is described in the DEIR. See, for example, pages 51 and 52. The
State Lands Commission, in its action approving the original ocean
portion of the route, referred to the application as one for a ''Non-
commercial Lease" (State Lands Commission Calendar Summary, March 31,
1975, "pages Til; 1(16) and 2(17)):.
J.15 - The comment, re the Population and Community Characteristics
section of the DEIR, that there is no mention of ''the proposed
subdivision for Meacham Hill and Pepper Road" is irrelevant, since
the section in question deals primarily with Countywide statistics
and projections.
J.16 - Rural residents who are not dairy owners should be added to
the list of communities, as the commentator requests. The DEIR
preparers were not aware at the time of preparation that there was
a letter of opposition from the City of Cotati; this would have been
included. We find now that the commentator is correct about Cotati's
opposition. In our files at the time of preparation of the DEIR were
letters from city planners in both Cotati and Petaluma (Cotati: letter
of February 13, 1975 from Mark Thysen, Planner, to William L. Bettinelli,
Esq.; Petaluma: letter of February 12, 1975 from Frank B. Gray, Director,
Department of Community Development to William L. Bettinelli, Attorney).
Neither letter raised any opposition to the project. Both noted its
temporary nature. Neither letter was cited nor included in the DEIR.
J.17 - The commentator's assertion that students who attend Dunham
School do not have bus service is accepted. This changes no statements
about project impacts; individual autos carrying students to Dunham
School merely add to the normal traffic before and after school hours.
To the extent that school bus traffic might be interfered with by
Fence visitor traffic, as noted on page 42 of the DEIR, this auto
traffic might experience similar delays.
J.18 - The potential impact of Fence visitor traffic on the ability
to provide various kinds of emergency service to the area along the
Fence route is discussed in the DEIR, for example on page 61 (last
paragraph) and the following development in that Traffic/Circulation/
Parking section. The emphasis in that section is on the assessment
of the possibilities for congestion, with all its implications, and
the suggestion of a mitigation approach. The conclusion (DEIR, pages
66 and 67) that with the expected gradual buildup of visitor interest
there would be time to implement a series of contingency plans,
including the ultimate mitigation of requiring removal of the Fence,
is most important. If Captain Denton of the CHP decides that potential
congestion is likely to interfere seriously with the provision of
emergency service, he will order the Fence to be removed; the applicant
has agreed to comply immediately with such an order.
J.19 - Comment quotes a statement from the DEIR. No response is
required.
J.20 - The impact of a temporary drain on the Petaluma water supply
must be viewed in the context of overall water use as well as use by
normal tourist traffic in the area. The upper limit of 100,000 gallons
per day on the peak day is probably more than double a worst-case estimate
of the average daily visitor use. This figure applies to use along the
entire route.
J.21 - Comment quotes a statement from the DEIR. No response is
required.
Je22, Jconandy J 24 — Same as Jie21.
J.25 - See J.18, for response applicable to this comment.
J.26 - The commentator appears to question whether the proposed monitors
can handle all the duties that they may be assigned. It should be
noted that the monitors will be operating in support of on-duty and
off-duty police personnel and will be trained by the Sonoma County
Sheriff's office and the Sonoma County District Attorney's office
(DEIR, page 19). Details of operations by the monitors would be
worked out at the training sessions. The monitors would not be
controlling road traffic (DEIR, pages 46 and 47).
J.27 - Comment quotes statement in DEIR and expresses concern about
impact. No response required.
J.28 - If chemical toilets were set up on private property, as
suggested in the DEIR, parking would have to be provided on that
property. Waste containers could be set up at stopping points along
the roadway.
J.29 - The no-smoking suggestion is one of several mitigation measures.
J.30 - In case of emergency under congested conditions, the authorized
traffic controllers could block access to particular road sections
until the emergency vehicle(s) had gotten through.* Again, see J.18.
J.31 - For effects of traffic congestion on milk trucks, see J.18.
J.32 - Bonding and insurance arrangements and requirements are described
at several locations in the DEIR. See Sonoma County Conditions, Nos.
6 and 7, on page 23, DEIR, for example.
J.33 - Commentator appears to be correct in her contention that a break
in the ridge line will expose the full height of the Fence to view
from some homes, including her own. The DEIR (p. 54, as cited by
commentator) indicates that both close-in and panoramic views would
be altered.**
J.34 - Given the conclusion referred to under Response J.18 above,
regarding the availability of time (after erection of the Fence) for accurate
projection of peak conditions, and given the authority of Captain Denton, CHP,
to demand removal of the Fence in advance of the development of peak
traffic conditions, it appears that preparation of a detailed traffic
management plan as a requirement for use permit approval is not
necessary.
J.35 - This is a comment on the project, not on the EIR. No response
is required. It should be repeated here that the assessment of energy
utilization was very much a worst-case analysis.
J.36, J.37 and J.38 - These comments quote statements in the EIR. No
responses are required.
*A standard procedure, common in summertime traffic on Highway 1,
for example, is for the emergency vehicle to move down the center
of the roadway, at speeds as high as 20 MPH, with autos on both sides
of the road pulled over with at least one pair of wheels on the
shoulder.
**Tt should be noted that commentator does not hold her view in per-
petuity. The Assessor's Map (24-10) for the Happy Acres subdivision
shows 10 residential parcels, from 0.54 to 1.08 acres each, in a
direct line between her property and the Fence right of way.
J.39 - Commentator notes that measurable rainfall occurred during
the 'drv season" in 1975. Measurable rainfall at some point during
the dry season would not necessarily mean that construction activities
would produce harmful impacts, since dry soil can absorb or percolate
some rainfall without becoming saturated. Construction would have to
be controlled, depending on soil conditions. See Sonoma County Condition
No. 8, DEIR p. 23.
J.40 - Wind velocity figures for San Francisco Airport were used to
document seasonal changes in the Bay Area. To develop similar infor-
mation for the Petaluma Wind Gap would require a continuing measurement
program over many years. Taking a limited number of measurements in
one season of one year would provide little useful information. For
significance of wind data, see response G.1 above.
J.41 - See responses J.39 and J.40.
J.42 - Not a comment on the DEIR. No response required.
J.43 - Same as J.42.
J.44 and J.45 - Each comment is a quote of the DEIR. No response is
required.
J.46 - Comment: '"'the place where my house should be marked is marked
as a viewpoint and a hazard."" There is no more reason to mark
commentator's house than there is to mark any other along the route.
By commentator's own statement (J.33) the Fence will be visible from
the area of her home. Therefore this spot along Meacham Road could
very well be a viewpoint and a hazard.
J.47 - As noted in the DEIR (footnote, p. 189), "Statements in this
EIR about space along shoulders merely indicate that there is a physical
capability for stopping. It is not certain that this will be permitted..."
J.48 - See Response J.47. See also DEIR (footnote, p. 178): "Abnormal
traffic will change movement of traffic and may make any stopping
hazardous."
J.49 - This four-part comment about traffic conditions near commentator's
home is partly responded to by analysis of the second set of recent
traffic counts, received by ESA after the delivery of the DEIR to the
Sonoma County Planning Department. Table K-1 (Addendum), following,
summarizes those data. ESA's analysis of the implications of the
Table K-1 (Addendum) data and of the visitor traffic projections is
as follows*:
*Additional information was provided by Walter W. Laabs, Jr.,
Sonoma County Public Works Department, telephone conversation,
December 1, 1975.
TABLE K-i (ADDENDUM)
TRAFFIC COUNTS, AUGUST 29 - SEPTEMBER 22, 1975*
(SONOMA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT )
Weekda Weekend or Holida
1969**-2365**
Road Segment
Stony Point Road,
South of Meacham
Road
2132-2526 | 190-220 195**-295**
Meacham Road, East
of Pepper Road
1039-1113 dASe r= 1062 ay Silex =139%%
Pepper Road, East
of Walker Road
1027-1348 | 106-218 894 - 932 104 -128
West Railroad
Avenue, East of
Highway 101
860- 977 O77) a=. 981
*Ranges indicated, where several days' counts were made.
**labor Day Weekend.
Meacham Road, east of Pepper Road -- These counts were taken
at a point about 500 feet east of the intersection with Pepper Road.
Therefore, they do not document what may be a critical element of the
interior road network; namely, the section of Meacham Road between
Stony Point Road and the dump. However, they can be added to the
dump traffic provided by Mr. Laabs (op. czt.). April 1975 vehicle
counts on the dump road itself were as follows:
Weekdays: Full-day 338-486
Saturday: Full-day 1055
Sunday : Full-day 1310
Peak-hour 200 (rate level at about 170
from 10AM to 4PM)
For vehtcle trips (2-way), these figures must be doubled.
If the weekend peak-hour figure of 400 dump trips (trip ends) is
added to the highest weekend peak hour 2-way count of 139 (Table K-1
Addendum) for the westerly end of Meacham Road, near Pepper Road,
then the total weekend peak-hour traffic on Meacham Road at the Happy
Acres subdivision would be a maximum of 550, allowing for inclusion
of trips by Happy Acre residents themselves.* This is the projected
traffic count before the addition of Fence visitor traffic. The
latter are estimated under the assumptions and by the calculational
methods of the DEIR (pages 208 and 209). Second-Sunday peak-hour
Fence visitor traffic would be 300 (2-way). Therefore, the total
second-Sunday peak-hour volume is 850, well above the two-way capacity
(Level C) under congested conditions; in fact, exactly at the volume
for Level D. Thus, on the peak Sunday, and probably on other weekend
days, congestion on Meacham Road at the Happy Acres subdivision could
be a problem, particularly if large numbers of visitors try to stop
along the shoulders for views (or photos) of the Fence. Since the
flows on weekdays, especially the first few, will be well below
capacity (about 400 to 500, 2-way, peak hour), visitor behavior on
those days can foreshadow the potential problems on the weekends,
while not causing serious problems itself. Thus, there would be time
for decisions about Fence removal, if traffic volumes are as high as
those predicted here.
SN Sie ae ° . . . . .
This is an overestimate, because it ignores the possibility that
some of the Table K-1 Addendum trips are to the dump, rather than
to Stony Point Road.
Stony Potnt Road, between Ratlroad Avenue and Meacham Road --
The new traffic counts (Table K-1 Addendum), taken in this section of
Stony Point Road, supersede those used on Page 210 of the DEIR, which
we find had been taken (May 1974) about 500 feet north of Pepper Road.
The new counts for existing Sunday peak-hour volume * when combined
with the Fence visitor projections for the second-Sunday peak hour,
lead to a projected total volume (2-way) of 820. ‘This peak-hour
volume is above the Level C capacity of 700, approaching the Level D
capacity of 850. The new projected volume of 820 is very close to the
projected volume of 825 (p. 210, DEIR), which had been estimated on
the assumption of a normal Sunday volume of 3000 (all day). Thus, the
conclusions of the DEIR (first paragraph, p. 211) stand. It should
be noted that the recent roadwork on Stony Point Road included provision
of a left-turn channel for traffic turning into Meacham from northbound
Stony Point. While this would improve the left-turn situation, it is
almost certain that under peak visitor traffic conditions a traffic
controller would have to be stationed at this intersection. Experience
on the first weekdays would again provide guidance as to what could be
expected later, while unacceptable congestion would probably not exist
at the time. Commentator's assertion that Steny Point traffic increases
on weekends is partially correct (Table K-1 Addendum). The maximum
peak-hour existing traffic is higher on the (Labor Day) weekend than
on weekdays, but the total-day weekend traffic is lower than the
total-day weekday traffic. In any case, the analysis here used weekend
volumes, and the analysis in the DEIR assumed that existing Sunday
traffic is double the traffic on weekdays.
Pepper Road (east of Walker Road) and West Railroad Avenue --
The data on these two roads in Table K-1 Addendum indicate that on
neither road will traffic volumes approach Level C under any circum-
stances. West Railroad Avenue has extremely low existing volumes;
Pepper Road (east of Walker Road) is not part of the viewing network.
The projections of total visitor traffic reflect the judgment of
an experienced traffic engineer, on the basis of visitor data for a
variety of events, in the Bay Area and elsewhere. Other comments under
J.49 have been responded to in the preceding discussion of Meacham Road
and Stony Point Road traffic.
J.50 - See Response G.1 above.
*Mr. Laabs (op. cit.) estimates that the roadwork on Stony Point
north of Meacham, which was going on at the time of the count south
of Meacham, would not have affected the count significantly.
konald |...) Raymond
oat
Kl, k.2 and k.3 - Comments on the project, not on the DEIR. No
response required.
K.4) = See) Response) J-/9) above.
K.5 - See Responses K.1, K.2 and K.3.
K.6 - Commentator asks tor detuils of the proposed operations in-
volving transport of cable reels to the site, unreeling und place-
ment of the cables, and behavior of the cables under temperature
fluctuation. The cable trailer will be rented from Underground
Construction Co. of Oakland. The rigs and the procedures will
be similar to those used by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in its
own cable-stringing or cable-undergrounding operations, which
are performed in both wet and dry seasons. A rule that will be
followed, without variation, in all operations involving multi-
axle vehicles is that gross weights will be limited to values
such that the load per tire will be no more than that on a pickup
truck like those used by the ranchers in routine operations (Paul
Kayfetz, Attorney for the Running lence Corporation, telephone
conversation, December 1, 1975). No information was available,
at time of writing, on the subject of temperature effects on
cables. Since nylon panels will he anchored to the ground at
twenty-foot intervals (via anchoring of the bottom cable), it
is difficult to see how any sag produced at the highest tempera-
tures experienced will produce panel movements more extreme than
those produced by mild breezes.
Ko =aoee Responses J .26) and .J.18.
K.8 - Total number of monitors will be sufficient to provide forty (40)
in one shift on the peak Sunday and at other times as needed, with a
normal-shift complement of twenty five (25). Not all will have
motorcycles. Those with motorcycles would be using the roads only;
they would not be going cross-country. Erosion is therefore not a
problem in this context. To the extent that motorcycles are used,
they will create intermittent (intrusive) noise events, but will not
affect the time-averaged noise levels generated in the DEIR.
K.9 - Commentator's judgment as to the visual impact of the fence
poles (before installation of the nylon panels) is now part of the
record. It does not affect the conclusion of the DEIR that the
Fence 1s not a visual barrier before installation of the panels.
K.10 - The comment pertains to the relationship between the Fence
easement agreements, on the one hand, and Williamson Act contracts
between landowners and the County, on the other. Terms of the
Williamson Act agreements between the landowners and Sonoma County
do not prohibit the landowner from granting this kind of temporary
easement (written opinion of Ms. Caroline Kerl, County Counsel's
Office, in County Planning Department files). The potential detri-
mental effects of the Fence on the preservation of agriculture in
Sonoma County are another issue related to the intent of the
Williamson Act. The DEIR concludes (p. 145) that developmental
growth, other than at current rates, is not a likely outcome of the
PROIECE.
Kel oeem Response: dialO2
Kl SeesResponsenJial7-:
K.13 - See Responses J.18 and J.30.
K.14 - The statement in the DEIR is an accurate paraphrase of
Lt. Greer's statement.
Kolo izmsee Responses: Ji 17 <and J.18'.
K.16)= See’ Responses Ji228) and K.H0.
K.17 - Quotes the DEIR. See also Responses J.18 and J.30.
K.18 - See Responses J.28, J.47 and J.48. A distinction between
"stopping" and ''parking'' should be made.
K.19 - See Response J.29.
K.20 - See Response J.30.
K.21 - The cited statements are taken out of context. The statement
about the price of milk in the first paragraph on p. 48, DEIR,
refers to the comparative market for milk; that in the third paragraph,
same page, to price as related to production cost. Data as available
were used; there was no selection to prove a point. The important
statement in the ECONOMICS Setting section of the DEIR was that there
are existing pressures for development in the area of the Fence route,
in spite of the depression in the housing industry in the Bay Area.
K.22 - With regard to personal and corporate income, the DEIR cited
data from federal income tax returns. The purpose was to document
the non-commercial nature of the enterprise. See the statement of
caution in the DEIR (p. 52, paragraph 1, last sentence). See also
Response J.14.
K.23 - Quotes the DEIR. No response required.
K.24 - See Response J.33.
K.25 - See Response J.49. Commentator misinterprets assumptions
about tratfic splits made by ESA's traffic-engineering consultant.
K.26 - See Response J.49.
K.27 - Comment on project, not on DEIR. No response required.
K.28 - See Response J.49.
K.29 - The DEIR is quoted out of context, with respect to the presumed
relationship between the existing recreational potential of the area*
and commentator's statement: ''This thing is being proposed as a
recreational use on Agricultural Preserves."
K.30 - See Response J.39.
K.31 - See Response J.40.
K.32
See Response J.39.
K.33 - There is a difference between the soil's being dusty dry, on
the one hand, and moist, but still not susceptible to rut formation
or erosion, on the other. See suggested mitigation, p. 104, para-
graph 2, DEIR.
K.34 - The comment concerns the noise from the truck (and other
vehicle) traffic on Meacham Road. The DEIR conclusions about existing
noise along the Fence route are not affected by the new traffic-count
data on Meacham Road, even with the truck data supplied by Comment
Kaze.
K-55; and K.56 —sSee Response J-4 9.
K.37 - See Response G.1, with respect to testing in Colorado. The
remainder of the comment has to do with the project, not the DEIR.
*The cited statement refers explicitly to the ocean end of the
Fence.
L. Sonoma County Public Health Service
L.1 - Commentator notes that, with respect to liquid waste, the DEIR
refers only to potential effects on public sewerage systems, whereas
septic systems are used by restaurants and service stations in the
rural area. He notes further that overuse of such systems,
particularly in Bloomfield and Valley Ford, can have serious
contamination consequences. This provides further support for the
suggested mitigation measure (p. 45, DEIR) of provision of chemical
toilets, particularly in these areas.
L.2 - This comment concerns the suggested use of water-filled spray
rigs, on stand-by on ranches, for fire protection. Commentator
asserts that the proposal is highly improper due to insecticide
residue in the rigs, which might expose people to harmful, if not
lethal, insecticide levels. The proposal was made (by the applicant)
on the understanding that the rigs to be made available were used
only for the spreading of liquid fertilizer (telephone communication,
Paul Kayfetz, Attorney for the Running Fence Corporation, November 28,
1975). Precautions will be taken to see that no rigs that have been
used for insecticide or herbicide spraying will be applied to fire-
fighting.
L.3 - Commentator's recommendations for toilet and handwashing
facilities for workers, and for provision for removal of litter
generated by workers and viewers, become part of the record of
recommendations for conditioning of the proposed Fence use permit.
M. County of Marin Department of Environmental Services
The only comment pertaining to the DEIR per se is ''...the report
appears to cover the major concerns of the Marin County Planning
Department and this division.'' The comment is acknowledged with
sincere appreciation.
N. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
The conmentator notes that the DEIR incorrectly stated that the Corps
had granted a permit for those portions of the originally proposed
project under its jurisdiction. ESA apologizes for this error,
generated in the course of the last-minute revisions to the DEIR
before printing. What the DEIR preparer had in mind was the following
statement from the Corp's Public Notice 75-315-053 of March 7, 1975:
"In accordance with requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (PL 91-190), the Corps has evaluated the environmental
aspects of the proposed activity and has determined that the activity
involves a minor effort of no significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Therefore, at this time it does not appear that
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the
Corps will be necessary."
PART 2
LATE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES, AND TRANSCRIPT
ls INTRODUCTION
The contents of Part 2 of this Addendum are as follows:
(1) Letter from Division of Forestry. The Comments therein
were responded to at the December 3 hearing. See transcript following.
(2) Letter from Dr. Welton L. Lee responding to comments of
Jerome Tichenor (Part 1). A full ESA response to Mr. Tichenor's
comments appears in Part l.
(3) Letter from Dr. Welton L. Lee responding to comments of
Lois Raymond (Part 1). A full ESA response to Mrs. Raymond's comments
appears in Part l.
(4) Letter from California Coastal Zone Commission (short title).
No response is required. The Coastal Commission action had been cited
in the Draft EIR.
(5) Pertinent pages from the transcript of the December 3, 1975
hearing on the EIR. Omitted are the pages concerning procedures for
the hearing and the EIR processing, as well as the pages covering
the reading of the Part 1 responses into the record. Included are
the oral comments on the EIR (BZA and public) and the oral responses
thereto (R. Cole, ESA; T. Cordill, Sonoma County Planning Department).
The transcript pages are preceded immediately by a list of errata in
the transcript. This list ignores errors of transcription in grammar
and usage; it includes only errors of substance.
II. LETTERS OF COMMENTARY AND RESPONSE
ATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY
=PARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
IVISION OF FORESTRY
noma Ranger Unit
560 West College Avenue
anta Rosa, CA 95401
46-1544
December 2, 1975
George Kovatch, Planning Director
Sonoma County Planning Department
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
ATTENTION: Robert Pocan
Dear Mr. Pocan:
In regards to the RUNNING FENCE Environmental Impact Report, the Cali-
fornia Division of Forestry would include those comments made in a
letter to your office for the RUNNING FENCE Use Permit Application
dated January 21, 1975. California Division of Forestry would also
like to make the following additional comments.
One area of concern can be directed at the potential traffic in the
event of a fire in this area or other emergency in which vehicles are
required to respond into, through or out of, during peak traffic flow
periods. We feel that traffic control problem criteria should be estab-
lished so that the movement of these emergency vehicles would not
endanger the personnel on them or the sightseer, etc.
Another impact as an unknown could be to the drawing of people living
outside the area to establish residence in either existing or newly
constructed residences to the point that in the future this new popu-
lace would increase either fire occurrence or demands on other emergency
services, schools, etc. This new populace would not necessarily reside
in the area of the fence. The EIR confines it's comments to the area
of the fence.
Although the EIR mentions a study of potential visits by water, it does
not mention a potential visitation by air.
SONOMA COUNTY Very truly yours,
FRANK E. CROSSFIELD
P Ih A NI NI NI G D F PT. State Forest Ranger IV
Cee: oa eon ay awh cate een
I Sats
cm
i
‘
i! n ; 4
omy ty NaS eu coal by GERALD R. MURPHY
ke es ne ee es Gea 4 Fire Prevention Supervisor
Ser ee, ee ie ji
as ele b + - we S) roe 4
32 Ee a5 Neste) NSE? ely os
i ee
eb The negra
GC = ket or oe ri yey
CONSERVATION IS WISE USE—KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN AND GOLDEN
November 25, 1975
Mr. Tom Cordill
Environmental Administrator
Sonoma County Planning Department
County Administration Building
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Dear Mr. Cordill:
I have received and reviewed the two letters which you forwarded
to me. As you know, I was sent a separate copy of the letter from
Dr. Joel W. Hedgpeth, dated November 16, 1975. You should already
have my response to the charges in that letter.
I do not feel that the second letter you sent, namely the response
of Mr. Jerome Tichenor, the "artist, "’ merits comment since satirical
poetry does not constitute a responsible or objective criticism of a
scientific evaluation. I note with interest that the address of Mr. Tichenor
and Dr. Hedgpeth is one and the same. ;
ea
Singerely, /
Lh
ren 4 Ls = =
nr NAT A CE C hs Ce
Ce Meeeriaue ak erties Satie es
Sec se Welton L. Lee
. oe gown: th ' oe Consultant
zu
t
ti.
“5 i
hi css A Seas waa? Ue
bee a pola a ae ‘
WLL:rm
S SoM a A COUNTY
: j ayes theca =
be t SAY { t )
‘ Bam, ia Ween AS) Re ab . } : tum a .
Mr. Tom Cordill
Environmental Administrator sri | a Boh: epee rl. eh lane caer
Sonoma County Planning Department i oa oe aie
County Administration Building ; a8
2555 Mendocino Avenue Fee Orbe aaeecae
Santa Rosa, CA 95401 sei Lp eae A ee ete
Dear Mr. Cordill: Be Cp oe ie kisi e i
I just received copies of the responses to the Environmental Impact
Report on the Running Fence and would like to comment on two of the
letters in which statements were made relative to my assessment of the
impact on the intertidal and subtidal areas.
The first letter is from a Mrs. Lois M. Raymond, dated November 23,
1975. On page one of that letter the comment is made that [there is]
',..no investigation of the intertidal area for in-depth analysis of the
marine communities present."’ As substantiation of this statement, Mrs.
Raymond quotes my report (page 89) "... the short period allowed for an
investigation of the intertidal area obviates any in-depth analysis of the
marine communities present."’ What was omitted, however, was the
remainder of my statement which says, "However, the area in question is
so typical of other exposed coastal areas along this coastline that a
description of the major faunal elements and the prevailing environmental
conditions is sufficient to make a reasonable assessment of the impact."
Let me pursue what might be entailed if one were to take the implications
of her comment seriously.
The major question would be: What is the effect of Running Fence on
the intertidal communities under the worst possible sequence of events?
These would be: 1) the unseasonable occurrence of heavy storm activity,
2) the dislodging and/or breakage of the anchors, 3) the scouring of the
area by a loose cable and 4) the dislodgment or sloughing of debris onto
the upper intertidal. To answer such a question would require complete
knowledge of the distribution of the most susceptible species in an arc
through which a loose cable would move, simulation of the effects of a loose
cable and estimates of the over-all effect in the entire area, and several
years of detailed population studies to assess natural variability in population
levels and recruitment, particularly as they change during the stormy months,
with a final mathematical assessment of the degree of natural die-off from
RECEIVED
DEC SiS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF SONOMA
scouring as compared to the additional die-off under these simulated
conditions. In addition, to study the effect of sloughing and landslide -
from one pole - a complete analysis of the species in the upper intertidal
would be necessary, followed by detailed studies of effects of natural
slide activity on population levels as compared to simulated slides of a
magnitude similar to that expected with the dislodgment of the last pole.
The intertidal area in question, although depauperate, nevertheless
contains many hundreds of species. Population studies and the experi-
mentation of the magnitude needed for a full "in-depth" study would
require the efforts of many people over several years. Such a study would
almost certainly create more of an environmental impact than the Running
Fence even under the worst possible conditions. I therefore feel that the
effort implied would far exceed the expected impact by such a degree that
it would be unreasonably costly, unnecessarily destructive to the intertidal,
and provide no more real assurance of the ultimate outcome. I therefore
feel that the present level of study is perfectly adequate for a reasonable
prediction of the worst possible effects on the areas and provides that
information with little or no impact on the area in question.
The second letter which requires comment is from Mr. Ronald L.
Raymond from the same address and dated November 23, 1975. On page
six of his letter he refers to a statement I made: "In brief, the area,
because of its location and isolation, now has little recreational potential."
Mr. Raymond apparently objects to this statement because the Running
Fence has been proposed as a "recreational use on agricultural preserves."
The statement I made is perfectly correct, for I said the area had "little"
recreational potential, not ‘no’ recreational potential. The one-time,
relatively short-term use of this land, as proposed, seems to me to fall in
the category of little recreational use. Obviously, the term is dependent
upon an individual's concept of "little" and therefore is subject to different
interpretations.
Sincerely,
t 7 Ge cae
.Dr. Welton £. Lee
Consultant
WLL:rfm
TATE OF CALIFORNIA
-ALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
(ORTH CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
050 NORTHGATE DRIVE, SUITE 130
AN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903
415) 472-4321
November 25, 1975
Thomas Cordill
Environmental Administrator
Sonoma County Planning Department
2555 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, California 954,01
Edmund G,. Brown, its 9 Governor
RECEIVED
DEC 1 1975
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF SONOMA
Re: Environmental Impact Report, Running Fence
Dear Mr. Cordill:
This letter hereby recognizes that Sonoma County is the lead agency
in evaluating and acting upon the Environmental Impact Report
for the Running Fence in Sonoma County. To aid in your evaluation
of the Coastal Commission's concerns about this project, I am enclosing
the staff report and action of the State Commission meeting of June 18,
1975, at which this item was considered. The Commission's resolution
fairly represents the concerns relative to this proposed project.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at (415)
Wi72-L3216
Sincerely,
Le A Val / w
Se divs A Re & TY ke 4 ted
ra
Gary L. Holloway ae
Senior Coastal Planner
bev
ence
y
tea
Meta mae eae avr Fees ae
t
ees Seana
Ta hy da sUsawuas 1 in Fea” We or
STATE OF CALIFORNIA a oP 2
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1540 MARKET STREET, 2nd FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, 02 ;
PHONE: (aavee sce iv \ (, Zh
\
FOMUND G. FROWN
\
July 22, 1975 NORTH CENTRAL COAST
REGICNAL COMVISSION
U2 otaisie
Running Fence Corporation = ie
c/o Marty Abell R E C E | V : »)
URS Ressarch Corporation
155 Bovet Road
San Mateo, California
Res Anpeal Noe 103~75
Dear Sire
On June 18, 1975, by a vote of 3 in favor,
9 against, the California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission denied your application for a rernit to
construct the devolopient described in the attached
staff recommendation.
Yours very truly,
JOSEPH E. BODOVITZ
Executive Director
Attachment
ect North Central Coast Regional Commission “
Ea
(
CALIFORAA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION CGMMISSION
1540 Market Streaty Sap} FroickealohlofOftis 557-1001
rar ARO MeN barron
JUL 2 4 19/9 Appeal No. 103-75
Running Fence)
60th Day: 5
DECISION OF PE CEIVED ay: 1/5/75
REGIONAL
COMMISSION : Permit granted with conditions by North Central Regional Commission
PERMIT
APPLICANT: Running Fence Corporation
APPELLANTS : Lawrence White, COAAST (Californians to Acquire Access to State. Tidelands
and the Committee to Stop the Running Fence
DEVELOPMENT
_ LOCATION: In Sonoma and Marin Counties, extending 24 miles from Highway 101 near
Petaluma through Valley Ford and 600 ft. into the ocean at the mouth
of Estero de San Antonio (Exhibits 1 and 2)
DEVELOPMENT
DmoCRIPTION: Construction of a temporary 18 ft. high white nylon fence supported by
poles, cables, guy wires, and anchors (Exhibits 3 and 4
PUBLIG HEARING: Held June 4, 1975, in South San Francisco
STAFF RECOMMENDATION RE TWO-THIRDS VOTE: The staff recommends that a 2/3 vote to appro.
this application is required under Coastal Act Section 27/,01 (a), which requires a 2/3 _
vote to approve “dredging, filling, or otherwise altering any bay, estuary, salt marsh,
river mouth, slough, or lagoon...." and Section 27401 ey which requires a 2/3 vote to
approve "any development which would adversely affect...existing areas of open waters
free of visible structures...."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following
resolution:
I. Denial.
The Commission hereby denies a permit for the proposed development on grounds
that the applicant has not met the burden of proof that the proposed development would
be consistent with the findings, declarations and objectives of the California Coastal
Zone Conservation Act of 1972.
II. Findinys and Declarations
The Ceunission finds and declares as follows:
1. Project Susmary. The 24-mile long nylon fence proposed by the applicent
would cross the coastal permit zone twice: once at Estero Americano, the Sonoma—iarin
County boundary, and once where the fence would enter the ocean at the mouth of Estero
d= San Antonio in Marin County (Exhibit 2). Easements have been obvained from property
o:mers along the route. A lease has been granted by the State Lands Commission for the
tidelands portion. An Army Corps of Engineers’ permit and possibly a water Quality
Control Board discharge permit remain to be obtained. The fence would consist of nylon
mansls hunz betwen two cables suspended from metal pales. Tne poles and cables would
be Suoported by puy wice ith coal enchorstariven Ypibbe “ (OCLMe veriGiedsa eiciiat
fence is dismantled, { r wires would be cub and th - dvs renain vadergceount.
x
No »oles would be placed below mean low water. A single cable attached to trio
Danforth anchors would support the 600-ft. segment in the occan. Construction of the
poles, cables, and guy wires would begin as soon as all permits are granted. Tne panels
would be hooked up on September 15 for a 2-week display period.
This $1 million project is proposed on behalf of Christo Javacheff. Previously,
he tas undertaken other outdoor projects such as inflating a 280-ft. hign air b3z in
Kassel, Germany; placing a plastic cover over a mile of shoreline near Sydney, Australi
hanging a 400-ft. curtain across a gorge in Rifle, Colorado; and most recently, covering
an ocean cove near Newport, R. I. with 150,000 sq. ft. of plastic.
2. Controversy Over Artistic Merit of Project. The applicant, supported by
museum directors and art critics, contends that the proposed fence, and the process of
building it, are an artistic endeavor of international importance. Opponents of the
fence consicer it a coastal carnival, a promotion, a publicity stumt. Huch of the
hearing time before local governments considering the proposed fence was spent on
artistic merit: is the fence art or isn't it?
The Commission makes no finding whatever with regard to the artistic merit, or
lack of merit, of the process or project. The Coastal Act does not require that a proj-
ect be a work of art to be approved, nor does the law allow environmental risk or
degradation because a project is determined to be of artistic merit. Tne Commission
must, under the Coastal Act, apply to this proposed development the same standards and
judgments that would be applied under the Coastal Act to any other development.
The applicant's attorney has submitted the following description of the project:
"The process of developing, planning, implementing—and removing without a trace—his
Work OL aru 1S Une most important areisuic aspect cf Christo's work Jiliniothe wards,
in this case it's not the ‘Running Fence' alone which is artistically important to
Christo; the entire process of the engineering work, the legal work related to the
acquisition of easements, the interaction with the community and with governmental
agencies also are crucial to his art" (emphasis in original). Except for the removal
aspect, this definition—planning, engineering, obtaining easements and permits, etc.—
would qualify every land developer as an artist and every land development as a work
of art. Clearly, the Commission must evaluate this proposed development under the Coaste
Act as it would every other proposed development, and not accord it special treatment.
3. Requirements of Coastal Act. The California Coastal Act, adopted as an
initiative measure by the people of California in 1972, states that "the coastal zone
is a distinct and valuable natural resource,..-existing as a delicately balanced eco-
system; that the permanent protection of the remaining nstural and scenic resources of
the coastal zone is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state
and nation; that in order to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to
protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resource
and the natural environment, it is necessary to preserve the ccological balance of the
coastal zone and prevent its further deterioration and destruction;-..." (Sec. 27001).
The Act further provides that any proposed project, to be approved, must be con-
sistent with these findings and objectives, and that the burden of proof as to consisten
is on the applicant.
L. The Project and Its Risks. The coastal area through which the fence would
pass is fragile, generally unspoiled, and relatively isolated. Into this area the appli
cant proposes to bring a corps of consultants to supervise the fence construction, and
also to invite large but unpredictable numbers of spectators. The environmental risks
are of two types:
y=
eee ¢
; a. Constructiourenua Removal of Fence. Althoug, Wh f : wW1i
display for only two wecks, construction and removal eae vider the aps a
Schedule, require several months. In the coastal area, the fence conseecenied would
involve placing poles in rolling agricultural land, and on the sides of stecp slopes
draping the nylon across salt marshes and tidelands, and anchoring the fence in the
ocean. The applicant and his consultants (biologists, geologists and engineers) con-
cede that this area is of great environmental significance and could be aonaed by un-
wise construction methods, but the applicant and his consultants maintain that the
work can be accomplished with a minimum of environmental damage. Their assess ient
of the impact of proposed construction is strongly disputed by the opponents, vhose
arguments are bolstered by Dr. Joel Hedgpeth, a renowned authority on this coastal
estuarine area. Time has not allowed for independent study to try to resolve the
dispute between the claims of the consultants employed by the applicant and the objec—
tions of the opponents. Given the fragile and important nature of this coastal area,
the burden of proof is heavy upon those who wish to intrude needlessly into it, and the
applicant has not yet met that burden.
b. Spectators and Curiosity-Seekers. The second risk comes from the crowds—
of unpredictable size and duration—likely to seek to view the fence. To reach those
parts of the fence within the coastal permit area, there may be some visitors arriving
on foot or on bicycles, but most mzy be expected to come by car, bus, or motorczcle.
To see the proposed fence where it enters the ocean, these visitors would have to travel
on narrow, winding, rural roads--or across dry grasslands. The danver of erosion caused
by people trampling on coastal bluffs and fields, the danger of people disturbing the
estuaries, and the danger of grass fire (the display would be at the height of the fire-
danger season, in late September) are recognized by all parties. Large numbers of
people drawn to the area coulc clog the major coastal access roads, both during con-
struction/removal and display periods, thus significantly interfering with other
recreational travel to the coast at the height of the sumner and fall visitor season.
5. Efforts to Mitigate Possible Adverse Effects. Both Marin County and Sonoma
County, whose approval was needed for portions of the fence, have granted their approvals
subject. to numerous conditions to try to deal with these risks. Their conditons, and a
similarly long list of conditions imposed by the North Central Regional Coastal Commis-—
sion in granting its approval, generally require the applicant ,tc nire consultants to
plan and supervise the construction, and to have fire and police protection and monitors
to control crowds. The conditions also require bonds to help enforce the conditions.
Because of the wording of some of the conditions, however (Exhibits 5, 6, and 7), their
enforceability could well be subject to disputes. In any event, many of the conditions
seek to mitigate or repair environmental damage after it has occurred. The Comission
finds no justification for such an approach in the Coastal Act, and finds no legal
basis for excusing long-term environmental damage on grounds the cause of it was on
display for only two weeks.
The Commission further finds that no Environmental Impact Report has ever been
prepared for this project, despite its obvious potential for major environmental dis-—
ruption, and finds that in the absence of the full evaluation an EIR could hae pro-
vided, it is difficult indeed to judge the effectiveness of the proposed conditions.
III. ERRATA IN TRANSCRIPT*
it Page 105 bine, 7: MR. CORDILL, vice DR. COLE
Ze Rage, OR wine sy7.< Same as 1.
3. Page 18, Lines 14-15: ...and I will read them at the appropriate
points, vice ...and I will read them at this point.
4. Page 24, Line 15: Thompson, vice Thomas
5. Page 62, Line 20: Subjective, vice substantive
On Rages Orlane ele Quarry, vtce Korty (twice)
7. Page 77, Line 14: antithetical, vtce antiethical
Ss JPkevexsy 7/8) 6 Malis Z7A8 ...Close to if perhaps not over, vice
...Close to perhaps not over
oe) Page si), Lines 14); attains, vucee shears
10. Page 82, Line 21 fast, vice far
ll. Page 90, Line 4: visual and aesthetic, vice just am antiaesthetic
12. Page 90, Line 6: need, vice may
13. Page 91, Line 15: environment than, vice environment of
14. Page 91, Line 17: CEQA, vice SEQA. This correction applies
wherever "'SEQA' appears.
*Replacements for errata are indicated. Errata in transcript section
containing reading of Part 1 into the record are not shown. Part 1
herein supersedes that portion of the transcript.
Ss
16.
Lies
18.
HSE
20.
Zale
Zein
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
65
97,
Lines 18-19:
Line
Line
Line
Line
Line
Line
Line
25
USE
26:
As I read, the requirement over estuarine,
vice As I read the requirement, other
estuarine
viability, vice liability
full, vice fourth
Thompson, vice Thomas
the, vice that
unless special flights were made, vice
of less special flights made
was reference to such a letter, vice
was such a letter
prohibition, vice provision
IV. TRANSCRIPT = (SELECTED PAGES)
Rime
wv
10
1]
12
1
_——— oe
T ORIGINAL) ©
|
(Noy ee
BEFORE 1): BOARD OF 20 :IN%G ADJUSTMENT
COUNTY OF SONOMA
TN HE MATTER OE:
Hearing Re: CHRISTO RUNNING FENCE.
a ed es ed
ROOM 107-A
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA
Wednesday, December 3, 1975
9:00 A.M.
== ZOUOS—
ama
| Robertew. Wontdgey,, (C. SiR. bb bb Bie
50 Santa Rosa Avenue ee 4 4975
PLANNING DEPARTMENT |
Santa Rosa, Ca. 95402
| COUNTY OF eoNor
te)
ws)
6
wm
THE. COMMISSION:
COUNTY COUNSEL:
ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATOR:
SDAPEs:
Chris K. Kjeldsen, Chairman
George Kovatch
Edward T. Meese
Fred Realy, Jr.
COM @)w Ora iaee leat
Adrian Swensen
Prentis Fish
Tom) Cordial
Bob Pocan
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
CHRISTO JAVACHEFF:
Edwin C. Anderson, Jr., ESq.
Paul Daniel Kayfetz, Esq.
th
10
1]
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
18
number is marked, and listen to the response. I will
identify each response by the caption "K.13," "J.24,"
et cetera,as it applies) 1n the ‘course, of your decision,
but it might be more efficient if you withhold comments
until I continue to read.
Just to make sure I don't forget something, I will
respond first to the comments that were read by Mr. Cordill
from the Division of Forestry.
The letter was dated December 2nd. I did not see
it until this morning.
The letter makes three points. One concerns the
effect of traffic congestion upon emergency vehicles
to get through. There are responses to that question
throughout this document, and I will read them at this
point:
The second concerns growth effects on areas outside
the immediate route of the fence and the growth induction
section of the DEIR, Pages 144 and -5, respond to that
question.
There are other places where it is discussed, I
believe, in the economic section.
The third point has to do with visits by air.
They are mentioned on Page 61 of the EIR.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Excuse me, Dr. Cole. Could
we proceed this way:
That if any of the Board has comments relative
to the document that you are referring to, you will read
a response, and if the Board has any questions as to that
10
11
12
24
disrupt the soil, then the top and side clips
would have released, allowing the affected
nylon panels to fall and lie flat on the ground.
In other words, the anchors, tested in place to
a force of 7,000 lbs., could never be exposed
to such a force. If the system is designed
(and has been tested) to withstand 25 MPH winds,
there is no reason to make it fail (break away)
at such wind speeds."
I have been informed this morning that two representatives
of a firm retained by the Applicant have recently made
further calculations and that individual answers will be
tested to different loads, as I understand it now, ranging
from 7,000 to 9,000 pounds. And if there are any further
questions, these two gentlemen, Messrs. Thomas and Fuller,
can answer the questions.
Comment G.2:
"Commentator objects to the failure to
include in the DEIR the cited letter by Margaret
Azevedo, Chairman of the North Central Regional
Coastal Commission. See Response F.1 above for
the applicable response."
"G.3 - Commentator asserts the EIR ‘is
surprisingly inadequate in essential documentation'
(again, see Response F.1 above), and goes on to
impugn the ethics of the DEIR preparers. His
commentary appears to apply primarily to the
contribution or Dr. Welton Lee, produced under
not appropriate there; but I think they are ranchers that were
stating that they consider the environmental impact on their
land and the sheep and the grazing, and what have you.
I thought that should be part of the record. The
other letter does have a specific issue that is raised and
refers to certain pages of the EIR.
MR. POCAN: Paraphrasing --
MR. FISH: Read them.
MR. POCAN: I will read the whole thing. |
"Dear Chairperson and Members of the B.Z.A. ..."
It is dated December 3, Santa Rosa. |
"I have studied the draft EIR submitted by
Environmental Science Associates on the Running
Fence and I wish my comments to be a matter of
record.
"The excesses of pollution, energy waste,
costs of services and damage to the land in general
is something which cannot be satisfactorily
mitigated as far as I am concerned. There would
have to be some overwhelming redeeming features
of this project to seriously consider mitigation.
In my opinion there are no overwhelming benefits
to the people of Sonoma County and therefore I
urge that your approval cf this project be with-
held.
"I did note two very glaring omissions in the
Bip | Thestrcst)ione 12s) that ‘there is: no plan to
mitigate the visual and aesthetic pollution
to
10
1]
2
My
18
19
56
(pp 53-54). And there iS no proposal apparent
for determining that Running Fence activities
should cease because of the dampness in the
ground. Do men and equipment have to be mired
up to their axles before the work stops? Or will
it stop at the first sign of damage to the
environment. Who decides and by what method? Should
this be considered?
"I am, in my absence, appearing before the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
on a Similarly important matter and regret not
being amont this group today. I remember prior
hearings as being lots of fun, like a circus."
"Sincerely, Charles H. Rhinehart."
Two other letters:
Would the preparer of the EIR respond to those two points
that were raised?
DR. COLE: Point one concerned “visual and aesthetic
pollution.
We made no claim that there is visual or aesthetic
pollution. We stated, as exactly as we could, vhat the
visual and aesthetic impacts were.
In our judament, if one accepts the contention that that
is pollution, there are no mitigating factors before him.
And we listed only those mitigation measures proposed
by the applicant or Suggested by us.
Point two, cessation of operations because of campness
in the ground have been covered in several of the written
th
10
1]
12
14
15
16
Di
responses to other comments. In particular I point out that
in one of those responses I mentioned the condition -- I
think it was number eight, Sonoma County Condition No. 8
of the original list, which had a biologist making the
determination, going along before construction proceeds
and making determinations as to whether construction in oat
given area should start.
The other comments were general and had to do with
decisions that are properly made by members of your Board,
and we have as much as possible in all of our EIR's stayed
away from trying to balance beneficial versus detrimental
impact of a project. That is not our purview. That is your
job, and we are glad you are the ones who have it.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Thank you.
MR. CORDILL: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that
on the two specific remarks here referred for comment by
the Chairman, the conditions attached to the use permit
I think adequately treat the work in relation to biological
or environmental damage.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Another letter that is not dated
was passed to me by Mr. Fish. It is one that I have trouble
decidings as to whether it is really speaking to the
environmental impact. It does present some data. Perhaps
there is some data presented that should be included.
It does not address itself specifically to any
references in the envircnmental impact. However, it is
adding additional information, perhaps.
Perhaps that should be read into the record.
6
|
the invitation of the chairman to answer some
questions. I hope this does not happen at your
meeting. Thank you for your time in reading
Chiisj.
"Sincerely, Lois Kirkland."
That is all I have.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: That then concludes the written
documentation and responses.
We will now take a 10-minute break, and then we will
proceed into the public hearing.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Now the Board members' questions
at this time.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
dimect) thas sto, Drs Cole.
On Page 30 you say you carefully avoided judging
the Running Fence as an art object as part of your EIR process.
Would you clarify that?
DR. COLE: What we meant was that we interpret
| CEQA and the guidelines to say that substantive judgment
should be avoided at all costs; that our functions as
consultants is to analyze as quantitatively as possible all
the impacts, the potential impacts of a project.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Pardon me. Is it your opinion
that the artistic nature of this project has no bearing on
the EIR process?
DR. COLE: It has no bearing on what the EIR Says.
It has a bearing on your decision because --
a
63
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Mr. Cordill, do you agree with
that?
MR. CORDILL: Will you repeat the question again?
COMMISSIONER MEESE: The artistic nature of the
project has no bearing on the adequacy of the EIR.
MR. CORDILL: Well, I don't think the question can
be answered, very frankly, Mr. Meese. The question is -- and
let me paraphrase it -- should the EIR in compliance with
CEQA discuss the artistic aspect of the project, and the
answer in this instance is No.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, in that case I happen to agree. I
think that the artistic nature is of no relevance to the
adequacy of the EIR.
Because we are already an hour late because of that
submission, or the reading of that document, I would move
that the B.Z.A. exclude all testimony as to the artistic
nature or quality of the project in hearing the EIR.
COMMISIONER REALY: As I recall, that is what you
did at the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: I don't think that is necessary.
I intend not to have any input or data submitted at this time
relative to the artistic quality of that. What we need to
lookvat. ==
COMMISSIONER MEESE: I would like the agreement of
the Board.
COMMISSIONER TORR: I will second the motion, if
you want it.
6
~1
10
1]
12
13
66
=
\
| 1
| FRCM THE AUDIENCE (Mr. Sutley) : My name 1S Sutley (2)
and I am in the Peace and Freedom Party, and I live at 60
Bensen Lane in Cotati.
I can't cite page number, but I know a lack of
coverage cn the traffic situation, and that's Javacheff's
‘joke that there is not even any consideration given to bicycle
traffic and what happens to the people that ride out in that
area and the safety factors involved there.
This is a real dangerous situation if we are going
to have the traffic stacked up out there.
I have just a couple of other points to address
myself to. The monitors to be trained by the Sonoma County
Sheriff to monitor things.
I don't know if that deals with the environmental
impact report, but that's going to cost us a lot of money and
it's going to mean the County is going to use the slave labor
of prisoners at the Honor Farm that are ultimately going to
be the ones to clean it up.
The only other question I have is, Maybe you can
find out if this material is being stored on Sonoma County
property because I heard that it's being stored in a warehouse
'down at the Petaluma Fairgrounds. And maybe we can find out
about that.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Thank you.
Anyone else wish to speak to the EIR?
MR. HEDGEPETH: ‘fy name 1S Joe Hedgepeth, 5660
Montecito Avenue, Santa Rosa.
M:y name has been taken in vain here a bit. I will
explain very briefly that I am sorry that Dr. Lee got into
this bind with me.
He called me up and gave me the distinct
impression that he had not yet decided to do this job on
the EIR. I think the rest of the letter is self-explanatory.
However, there is one point that has to be made.
He states that there are a lot of areaS on the seacoast
between laboratories in California. There is only one
with no developmental military reservation or industry.
Now, it is true that the application for estuarine
status is still in the beginning stage. However, at this
time the National Science Foundation has put out its call
for proposals for support of field laboratories, and
Pacific Marine Station is preparing such a proposal.
It feels that it may have favorable status due
to the comparative smallness and the long tradition of
environmental work on changes through time.
Now, one of the critical questions asked in these
proposals is, Can you control your environment?
If you don't own the beach, what guarantee can
you give?
We can say, of course, that Tomales Point, Bird
Rock, are in reserve status by being part of the national
seashore; and all that is dedicated for special study
purposes.
However, all this particular region of coast
May not be unique. It has become to an extent unique
because it is a study area. It may not be as easily
hm
10
1]
12
15
16
1
6o
accessible, and that is one of the reasons it is a good
study area.
I think actions of Commissions like this which
would indicate they are not interested in what is going
on in the local marine laboratories and plans for the
future, and especially for finances which has some
financial impact in Sonoma County, since most of the
staff members of Pacific Marine Station live in Sonoma
County, most of the business is transacted in Petaluma
and Santa Rosa. Anyone who expresses in favor of such
crackpottery as we have -- if you will pardon my personal
opinion -- will be looked at very critically by the
committees in Washington. They don't know anything about
this. They don't care. They are scientists and they
say, "If the people put up with this kind of stuff, they
are not really very helpful to us, are they?"
That's the sum total of my comments. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience who would
like to speak to this matter?
LOIS RAYMOND: My name is Lois Raymond. I live
at 317 Meacham Road.
I am not very cood at speaking; so I hope you bear
with me.
I hope that you read my letter to the Board and
comments that I included as a summary for my conclusions
imischias! etter:
The responses to them state that the EIR is
tJ
awa
quoted that none is necessary since it's a quote from then,
but I really think that some of it should be brought out
and noticed.
2.5 cubic feet of solid waste would be produced
each day by the workers themselves. That is Page 43, Item
(ca).
Page 44 in the first paragraph reads:
Meiie about 40) to 80recubie) vardsof
solid waste could be disposed of in the
a©neas
Also in regards to fire protection, Page 44, Number
(e):
"The use of a motor-driven vehicle on the
dry grassland area creates a potential for
£ime"
Also Page 45, Item (g):
"., . . the number of autos on the road
could inhibit swift service by emergency
vehicles ,
Many of the roads involved in this project do not
have any shoulders. I do not know how traffic going in
both directions could pull over for emergency vehicles to
pass through the center, as was stated in the responses
about emergency vehicles.
Also, in Response to 3.9 to my letter it states:
"The interested audience is that part
of the public that is interested in art and
art events."
10
1]
Anyone coming to SOnoma County during the time
of the showing of the fence will not be able to ignore it.
I think that the interested audience wiJl be anyone who is
interested in art, in art events, and anyone who passes
through Sonoma County who lives in Sonoma County who drives
through it, whether they had planned to or not, will not
be able to! dignore it. And my feelings) are that) many of
them who originally would not come to visit it will take
a little side tour to see what it's all about.
rt don't know af “thas as apropos att thas) tame: or
not. There was a letter from Lois Kirkland, one of the
farmers on the land that it's going through. She stated
that the fence will be in for one week. It is my under-
standing that it will be two weeks.
I hope you will consider us who live between
the route of the fence and the busy road who do not have
the easement agreement that it will be taken down without
any problems, who will not have monitors to protect our
homes.
Also, again I will reiterate that over one
million gallons of gas will be used by visitors, not to
mention the jet fuel and boat fuel. I'm trying to separate
my use permit comments from any EIR comment. You will have
EOnexcuse me.
Again, J.14 refers to the non-commercial, non-
profit nature of the running fence.
If you will read a copy of the Articles of
Incorporation, there is nowhere where they sav they are a
ee ee
10
1]
non-profit corporation.
TL
Also J.13. It states too the proposed subdivision
from Meacham Hill and Pepper Road was irrelevant, and yet
the gentleman who prepared the EIR told us that they only
considered the area that the fence would pass through in
their comments.
Also, J.13 states that the weekday traffic would
be less than the weekend traffic and that perhaps they
could judge the impact of the weekend traffic from that.
The Valley Curtain which was only up for 28 hours
drew 10,000 people in one day, the first day.
Also J.26: Who is going to give these monitors
any authority to stop the trespassing? I have been told by
the Sheriff's Department that I have no right to stop any-
thing from trespassing on my property myself; that I can
ask them to leave, but actually I have no authority. So I
am wondering, Who is going to grant monitors authority to
protect anything.
Also J=—29, the no-smoking, thing dis}\Z ‘thank, not
enforceable in the great outdoors.
J-30, in case of emergency under congestion: the
authorized traffic controllers could block access to
particular road sections until the emergency vehicles
have gotten through.
As I said, some of these roads do not have
shoulders. And also if there is going to be parking and
stopping allowed on the shoulders,
room for emergency vehicles.
there will not be any
And while I do not hold the view from the rear of
my home in perpetuity the area in which I live is also
zonea for rural residence uses, and I do not feel this
is an acceptable use in this area.
I would not oppose someone who is building a
home there because that's : necessary uSe and it is what
tS Z One GumssOncr.
© brought a picture, Lf you want, 12 anyone would
g Ys
like to look at it to see what the view is.
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: Will a staff member pass
that around, please?
LOIS RAYMOND: J.14 is exactly what I was trying
to bring out: that the place where my home is located would
be a viewpoint and a hazard will cause some very serious
problems for me and for my neighbors.
The traffic situation from Meacham Road where
figures taken in April of 1975, well, the dump traffic
increases as the year goes on, and towards the beginning
of fall when people are starting to take out their summer
gardnes, or whatever, the dump traffic increases greatly.
Also I question their talking about the maximum
peak period existing traffic is higher on the Labor Day
weekend than on weekdays.
I think that the figures are available for the
use of the dump on Sunday, whether it is a holiday or not,
and they are higher than when the dump is closed.
Aliso (one) jof ehe things wthat: =="
Ohl 7.11. Excuse mek | itaskec about howenes cabie
hm
10
1]
1%
would be brought in and unreeled, but there is no comment
as to what the weight of the cable is or the machine that
will be used to unroll it.
I think that's all the comment on the EIR. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Is there anyone else who would
like to speak to the EIR?
CAROLINE WILLIAMS PAYNE: Yes. My name is
Caroline Williams Payne. I live at 361 School Road in
Cotati, and I would like to read into the record a motion
that was made by the City of Cotati on March 4, UOWSt.
This was after the letter which was received by
the consultants in reference to whether Cotati had objection
to the project or not.
"The motion was made that the City Council
indicate to the Board of Supervisors that Cotati
disapproves of the fence proposed by Christo
in terms of the impact it would have in bringing
more people into Sonoma County as well as because
the fence would use beautiful natural resources
for a stunt.”
The motion was approved by a four to nothing vote
with one abstention.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Thank you. Is there anyone
else in the audience who would like to speak to the EIR?
ROMALD RAYMOND: Yes. My name is Ronald Raymond.
I live at 317 Meacham Road.
The summary on Page 5 talks about a five-fold
bho
74
inereaselin nowse. | Metoseyetes, ehey “tell us, willl add¥ to
the noise.
They still haven't answered how much these cable
reels weigh or how much pressure the SS of that truck
from Oakland will exert on the ground. My wife expressed
our views.
Our present understanding of the Williamson Act,
Section sl 20 (nm). and Sectton Mi23/71(K) | baragraph 3s), 2S
that it allows certain participating recreatdonal use.
In light of the need to prevent wholesale trespass
to forestall havoc across the county and the applicant's
claims that the project is inherently designed to be simply
viewed from a distance, completely obviates the proscribed
participatory nature of such use. Further, the tenants
of Open Space Requirements, Section 15201.(0), are to
prevent blocking public view from rural areas. This proposal
is an apparent contradiction on these bases.
I would like to reiterate that all of the fire
departments running from Graton, Santa Rosa and Petaluma
are all long runs, and they are going to be very congested.
And I would take issue with the proposition that people pull
over. People coming at you will pull over to the right,
and people in front pull over to the left.
I have driven equipment, Code 3, and I know that
half the time they stop dead center and you can't go either
way tc co around them because you don't know which way they
ane going te: jump).
Page 44 says, "The increase in number of persons
to
‘Qu
10
1]
18
19
20
and vehicles in this area, during the Season when the grass
is dry and the fire danger generally is high, compound the
fire danger and increases the chance that fire departments
would be
called upon.”
Page 46 calls for trashcans at stopping points
along the roadway, and they tell us, "There are no stopping
points along the roadway." And they point out about 50
stopping
points along the roadway and 50 additional hazard
stops where it is dangerous to stop along the roadway.
at these
For cars to be pulling in and out of heavy traffic
points is insane. Traffic jams would become
monumental and many people would misjudge these narrow
pulloffs
problem.
Novato.
blockage
views.
audience
and end up in the ditch, compounding everyone's
And it speaks of traffic being effected south of
On Page 53 it correctly describes it as intrusive
or partial blockage of close-in and panoramic
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Is there anyone else in the
who would like to speak?
I may remind you that what we need to have is
information relating to the adequacy or inadequacy of the
EIR and information on that.
When we get to the use permit some of these concerns
that have been expressed are really applicable there. Let's
continue.
on
|
1
10
1]
12
MP. DOUG KORTY: My name is Doug Korty. I live at |
505 Lichau Road, Penngrove.
I have three. Major Criticisms of the report.
I would like to say first that I worked for the
National Commission on Water Quality, Vice President
Rockefeller's study of the water pollution problem in this
country.
We had dealings with Environmental Science Associates
and consider them one of the better firms in the business.
I think the report in general is very well done
and reflects well on both the contractor and the Planning
Department staff.
My ‘criticisms are, first of all, the Applicant has
agreed to leave no trace of the proposed fence and also to
pay for or be responsible for all costs related to fire
control and crowd and traffic control, police protection,
ambulances, litter removal, forestry services and the
possible destruction of archeological sites.
I did not find in the environmental impact report
the results of any investigation by the contractor or of
what the total cost of all this might be and in any way
any suggestions for a way that the County can guarantee that
any and all of these expenses would be paid by the Applicant.
I think that the expenses could be rather substantial.
I'm not sure that the $150,000 bond would suffice. I am
not sure. There is no evidence that the Running Fence
Eorporation, in fact, has even $150,000 an assets.
On Page 33 of the report the contractor ventures
ro
14
15
16
to
Ww
the opinion that, "The running fence, the landowners
easement agreements with the Running Fence Corporation and
agricultural preserve contracts with Sonoma County do not
appear to be in conflict. Therefore, the Running Fence
can be considered not incompatible with agricultural or
open space use."
This iS opinion and yet is stated as a conclusion.
Worse, it confuses a technical issue: the agricultural
preserve contracts with broader issues of land use.
I assume people use a phrase such as "not
incompatible" to avoid saying "compatible".
I believe that the running fence is compatible with
neither agriculture nor open space. It would be hard to
conceive of anything more spectacularly antiethical to
"open space" than a 24-mile long 29-foot high fence.
The incompatibility with agriculture involves the
erosion and fire threats as well as the legal issue of
the agricultural preserve contracts under the Williamson
Act. The contractor's stated reason for believing the
running fence creates no conflict with the agricultural
preserve contracts is that no direct profit from admission
charges will be earned by the applicant. By this, indirect
income will be earned in the form of sales of art works
created in conjunction with the project but sold elsewhere.
By this interesting distinction between direct
anc indirect profits a factory would be not incompatible
with agriculture or open space as lona as the owners
refrained from charging admission.
78
Not only does the Running Fence Corporation plan
to earn income from this project, but the landowners are
receiving substantial income in the form of gifts for the
use of their land.
Since the IRS would treat these gifts as income,
I don't see why Sonoma County should be involvec.
The contractor should do a thorough investication
of the financial interest of the applicant and of the lana-
owners.
My thisd Criticism 1S that the contractor f£-rled
to treat the question of whether the fence represents
visual pollution. If the fence is constructed, peopie
living Ineos traveling thzouch the aitected area wits have
no choice about whether to view it. Much like the biliboare
advertisements, the fence will be there for all cf us tc
see, Like it or not, 24 milles of it, 20 feet high, bzockiuc
a gooe deal of the natural scenery which we might prefer.
The fence is purportedly an educational experience
anc a q2f£t for ‘the public. 2, fon one, do not appreciate
either the generosity or the condescension of the aprlicant.
The contractor should have made an effort to assess the
attituces of others who may be forced to view the fence
in various stages of construction for seven months.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Is there anyone else in the
aucience who would like to speak to the EIR?
(No response.)
Is there anyone else in the audience who would like
1]
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to speak to the EIR?
(No response.)
There are Staff questions that the Board has at this
time of Staff.
COMMISSIONER REALY: One thing I would like to
know in this report here, it says it is a limited corporation
with a capital of $51,000. I can't see whether it is 8 or
6, but if that's what the corporation is, how are they going
to get a hundred thousand dollar bond? And it says in the
report here a $150,000 bond and a million dollars in
insurance with a $50,000 corporation.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Can we have the preparer of
the EIR respond to some of the issues that were raised in
answer to some of those so we will have it as part of the
record?
DR. COLE: Would you like, Mr. Chairman, to take
this last Board comment first?
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Yes, let's answer that.
DR. COLE: I think the comment was with respect to
a starting figure when the corporation was formed.
First of all, I think everyone is aware that on
the running fence alone something close to perhaps not
over a million dollars has already been spent. That is to
say, the corporation income from the sale of art generated
on previous and the current project is used for expenditures
on these.
Secondly, I believe the bond is already available,
TS) ateenote
10
1]
12
14
15
16
17
E
80
JEANNE-CLAUDE JAVACHEFF: And paid for.
CHRISTO JAVACHEFF: One half million dollars.
COMMISSIONER REALY: Why don't you put that under
J.32? It says nothing about it.
DR. COLE: That was) an oversight. Actually 2tais
a partial oversight simply paca’ we have cited the fact
that a Sonoma County condition -- I think this appears on
Page 23 -- was that a bond be obtained, and we considered
that the binding principle.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Any other questions that the
Board has?
Mra Meese?
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Yes. JI was going to ask Mr.
Fish, Is the bond that is created satisfactory to you or
protecting the public interest?
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: That really is on the subject
of the use permit, and I think that is all we are looking
at now, Has the EIR addressed itself to that? And I think
I would rule that out of order.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: I will agree with you. I am
sorry. I would like to ask, though, if this question of
cost is pertinent as far as CEQA is concerned to the EIR
process.
The centleman brought up the question as to whether
the costs were examined adequately or not. How does that
fit as far as SEQA is concerned?
MR. CORDILL: I am not sure I understand what
costs are being described here. But insofar as a Gescription
81
uf the existing environmental conditicns and the effect of
the project itself, it is immaterial what the costs may be
so long as the nature of the structure in the project does
not change.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Okay.
DR. COLE: There is another way to answer that which
might be helpful.
The legislature has been wrestling with the
problem practically since '72, the question of whether or
not an economic impact report should be required at the same
time as an environmental impact report.
Now, that very distinction implies that there is
not a statutory guideline requirement for discussion of
€conomic fears in an EIR. Our firm as a matter of policy
has on most conventional projects, as well as this one,
discussed those aspects of economics which concern community
service costs because we see those as very much relevant
to a lead agency's decision. But economics on the other
side, the potential benefits we feel are not necessarily
required in the EIR.
CFAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Thank you.
Miss Swenson has a question.
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: Yes. On the question of
fire and other emergency services -- perhaps I have missed
it -- but I know you read the proposed mitigation measures,
and I understand that you recognize there is a fire hazard
in this area and that the roads, some of these roads,
particularly Walker Road, is extremely narrow. It is
to
ts
1]
12
13
14
15
82
essentially a one-lane read.
Tipit Suenw Ola aR ale haviemmusised sats how, would
the mitigating measures or what mitigating measures could
be used to insure that emergency vehicles could get through,
an ambulance or some kind of a fire rig in case of a fire?
. I understand from your statistics that there is
arfaanily high probability of fires an, that area.
Have you dealt with this issue? I have not found
anes
DR. COLE: In our responses we were not dealing
specifically with roads such as Walker Road. If it indeed
will not allow an emergency vehicle to get through between
two rows of cars with one set of wheels on --
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: It will accomodate one.
FE sdrove last.
DR. COLE: If that is true, then the only other
mitigating measure is the one that we have suggested in
our written responses, namely, that they would end up in
a delayed response by the emergency vehicle. But the
only one would be that the traffic controllers to get
all the traffic out of there as far as they can when the
vehicle did come through.
Now, in further response, let me say something that
I think is very important in this analysis. I will throw
some numbers out.
We made our congestion analysis on what we
considered to be a worst-case situation, in that we picked
the second Sunday at which time we assumed that the peak
83
buildup of traffic would have occurred as interest developed,
as the public realized that this was the last chance to see
the fence.
Our judgment there was affected very much by the
history of the Chinese Art Exhibit in San Francisco at the |
DeYoung Museum where interest picked up gradually over
what was about a two-month period, two and a half, with the
largest crowds showing up on the last weekend. |
Now, further, we had two important numbers in the
total induced visitor traffic, that is, numbers of visitors
on that peak Sunday.
We said that there would be a 30 percent probability |--
this is the judgment of our traffic engineering consultant -~—
a 30 percent probability of 30,000 people or 10,000 cars,
a 60 percent probability -- that is very close to a 50-50
probability -- of 15,000 or 5,000 cars, and an outside chance
of 5 percent of 50,000 people which we did not examine.
We examined both the worst-case, the 30 percent |
probability, which is to say, something like 2 to l
against that happening of 30,000 visitors.
It was on that basis that we did the whole traffic
analysis, and that is for that second Sunday.
We said as a further assumption that the traffic
buildup to that level, that very likely on the earliest
days before visitor interest had really developed, traffic
levels would be about one-quarter of that; so with the
30 percent or worst-case probability, you would be talking
about 10,000 cars, about 2500 to 3,000 cars in that first day.
ho
15
16
17
18
19
84
If our judgment is right, that meant first of all
that the kind of congestion that people worried about,
anywhere on this interior road network, would not show up
in those early days; but traffic measurements on those
early days, which would have to be a part of traffic
Management -- we mentioned that in the EIR -- would indicate
the high levels of attendance would be later on in those
peak days.
If those traffic measures indicate that conditions
like our 30 percent were expected to occur on that second
Sunday, then at that point I would imagine that Captain
Denton of the CHP would say, "Tear it down," before then.
That is a condition which I believe is built in.
It is a condition that the applicant has said he would
accept.
If Captain Denton says, "Tear it down now," then
the removal starts immediately. And it apparently can be
done in a day.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: Can I follow up? What,
then, if I understand your answer, are you saying? That
this then would make it very unlikely that there could be
a Situation of an emergency where emergency vehicles could
not get through? Is that the substance of your answer?
DR. COLE: On those very early days if our judgment
about numbers are correct.
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: On those very early days?
ro
| <0; aa
85
BR COLE: “What ®t "nreal lyesaying Sis, im my squdement
right now -- this is partly based on a recent analysis
which I was just doing the day before yesterday -- that you
would be getting to Level D which is getting pretty bad
on that second Sunday with our 30 percent probability estimate.
I would henley Chat those conditions, if they were
to occur or were to occur on the basis of the first days
would lead to a decision by Captain Denton to shut things
down. But I would think that the levels that would occur |
on the first day, the first few days, would not be enough
to create the situation you are concerned about.
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: I have one other question. |
Does your EIR -- I have not found this -- deal with the .
possible impact of traffic on Highway 101, possible peetdentes
lawsuits resulting from them, this sort of thing?
DR. COLE: We didn't go into the question of lawsuits.
What we said was that the fence would be attractive to
people on 101 but that they would get views of its the: Erafttic
coming in both directions on 101 would see the fence long
enough in advance so there wouldn't be panic stops by people
seeing it for the first time. But there could be a danger
of congestion because people slow down to see it, and you
could have a cueing feffect with people backing up.
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: Would the County be liable
legally for damage or, you know, loss of life or injury
in such accidents?
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: That is a question properly
addressed to Mr. Fish, and that will come up.
tN
10
1]
12
22
23
24
86
Mr. Realy has a question.
COMMISSIONER REALY: I would like to call your
attention to this: there iS an annual report,that was just
handed to me from the Secretary of the State of Illinois.
On February 11, 1975, the total of this corporation
was $51,800.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Mr. Meese, do you have any
other questions?
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Yes, I have, that pertain
to adequacy.
On the matter of visiting by air or viewing by
air, I don't think you treated that adequately because
that is the logical way to see the project. I think it
mightvattract quitera bit.of air traffic.
I do understand you now. I think Adrian has made
it clear that you feel that you can predict when the traffic
situation may be reaching an unacceptable level and the
project can be shut down.
As far as the costs go, in several places in here
you mention the willingness of the applicant to assume the
burden of costs that are actually mitigating circumstances:
the cleanup, should it be necessary, the protection of
the property and one thing and another. If that has to do
with the mitigating circumstances, it appears like the cost
of these items are relevant to the EIR process and whether
the applicant can sustain these costs.
DR. COLE: Mr. Kayfetz would like to explain that.
He is attorney for the corporation.
87
COMMISSIONER MEESE: I am just dealing with the
adequacy of the EIR. I am still concerned with whether
or not these cost figures should be approached.
MR. CORDILL: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, I think,
Mr. Meese, you are confusing the ability of the applicant
to comply with the condition, with the statement of condition
necessary to mitigating adverse effect which is contained
in an EIR.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: In my mind they are the same.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: We will recess five minutes to
change the tape.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: We are now back in order.
Mr. Meese, do you want to restate your question?
COMMISSIONER MEESE: If I understand your answer,
you are saying that as far as the EIR process to SEQA goes,
the cost of these mitigating factors are all of no
relevance? They are not of concern to us in deciding
adequacy? I want a Yes er No on that.
MR. CORDILL: In other words, so far as the EIR
is concerned, the EIR if it specifies the mitigating measures
that are needed in order to minimize adverse environmental
effect of the project and a mitigation condition is
contained in the use permit, then that use permit is not
valid, cannot be used by the applicant until and unless he
can comply with that condition.
If a bond is required, he can't do a thing until
he's got his bond.
10
1]
12
88
Whether he can afford it or not is not something
that needs to be argued and discussed in the content of
the environmental document.
MR. KAYFETZ: Mr. Chairman, may I add one item --
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Your name?
MR. KAYFETZ: My name is Paul Kayfetz. I am an
attorney for the applicant. The applicant obtained and
paid for and provided copies of policies to the County Sita fe
for the project last year when construction was contemplated
during September of 1975 from Travelers and other reputable
bonding companies in the amounts required by the various
agencies, a total of $25,000 in bonds which stand as surety
for performance on the various mitigation terms agreed to,
including cleanup, and also provided certificates of
insurance for the million and a half dollars liability
policy covering the County for all risks. So at that point
the insurers, Travelers and others, stood responsible for
these risks.
The terms in this permit again require that such
proof be provided and be deered satisfactory by County
Counsel before any work can go forward on the project.
So I believe that datum would be partially
responsive to the concern that has been expressed.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Mr. Chairman, that is not
my question. I think my question is very clear, and I would
like a yes or no answer.
Are the costs associated with mitigating activities
a matter of our concern as far as dealing with adequacy of
10
1]
12
22
23
24
25
26
28
the eELRZ
DR. COLE: Perhaps I can try to answer that.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Let me interrupt. Mr. Cordill
has stated that once before. Do you want to state it again?
MR. CORDILL: The answer is No.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Thank you. That's good.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: We have got it on the record
twice.
Now, Dr. Cole, will you proceed, if you would like,
to answer comments relative to the oral testimony that is
appropriate at this time?
DR. COLE: I think there was one outstanding
question from Mr. Meese which concerns air travel to view
the fence, and we mentioned that as a possibility.
We had no way of estimating how many people would
use that approach. We were not sure if we had a number
how we could say anything about the potential environmental
impact, that kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: But you think it would be
insignificant?
DRe (COLE: | "irywouwld thankso.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Will you proceed to give your
responses?
DR. COLE:, Twill try... 2 tried to write jas) fast
as I could, Mr. Chairman, as people were giving their
comments. I may have missed them; and if I missed anything,
I would appreciate having the people who made the comments
10
1]
12
24
25
26
|
tell me I did. |
I think Mr. Rhinehart made the first comment when |
hewwas talking sabout»s-— EL beltevethe Trererred to rt as |
just an antiaesthetic pollution. I don't think anything |
further than what has been said in the EIR or the response
comer: aeeenee to the comment may be said.
I will not make any comments on those comments
which were favorable to the project and which did not
speak to the adequacy or completeness of the EIR.
I have no notes on Mr. Christopher. I don't remember
whether he had derogatory comments. No responses on Mr. |
Solinsky or Miss Kirkland.
Mr. Sutley (sp?) claimed that there was a lack
of consideration dieiay to traffic. I don't see how one can
make that judgment. We have a very long and detailed traffic
calculation, and I think we covered the bases.
He mentioned bicycle traffic and the danger to
|
bicyele traffic. Aldi I can sayin thatrespect as that |
visitor traffic to this project as it developed would |
presumably be moving fairly slowly; some people would be |
at a standstill. |
Somewhere in the files there is a response from
one of the agencies -- that may have been CalTrans -- to the
effect that slowdowns of traffic induced by any reason lead
to less likelihood of accidents than normal traffic
operations on roads.
Mr. Sutley mentioned monitor training and the
costs, and the implication of his remarks were that these
10
11
12
1S
ee ee
would be a burden upon the County.
That is a cost which has been accepted by the
applicant, and it would be obviously paid for long before
the fence went up.
There is a question about where the material is
stored. The answer from the applicant is it is not at the
fairgrounds. If that is a major issue, we can go a little
further.
Dr. Hedgepeth commented on his view of the unique-
ness of the coastal area and talked about the National
Science Foundation call for proposals asking, "Can you
control your environment?"
The only response I can make to that is that
if any State in the United States is more concerned about
recreation or control of the coastal zone environment of
California, I am not aware of it. ;
California has a SEQA which is a full operation.
It has the Coastal Commission. As I read the requirement,
other estuarine zones would be regulation, not ownership.
I think the basic question for Dr. Hedgepeth's
concern about the interactions of a project such as the
:
running fence with the area as a study area are, What effects |
would this project have, if approved, on the liability of
that part of the coast as a study area? And I think every
biologist who has been called upon in any capacity or by
anyone in this study since the U.R.S. first started on the
use permit has indicated that there is nothing particularly
unique about this.
|
|
tl
1]
12
13
15
16
17
18
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Just specifically, to home in
on that, would that affect that area as a study area?
DR. COLE: I don't see how.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Thank you.
DR. COLE: And in summary of our responses to Dr.
Hedgepeth, in today's testimony and, to the best of my
knowledge, in his fourth correspondence he has still named
no specific biological impact, no specific detrimental
biological impacts of the fence as proposed in the coastal
zone.
And that really is the substance of Dr. Lee's
response, also.
Proceeding to Mrs. Raymond's comments, these went
pretty fast; and I may have missed some.
She said that the fact that the EIR was quoted
\
by her andwith no further statement on some of these points
should not be neglected, and she is right.
These points should not be neglected when you are
considering the use permit. They had nothing to do with
the adequacy of the EIR. They are there. She accepts them.
She refers to the question of cable weights. I
have answered that partially in my response -- I believe it
was K.6 - to Mr. Raymond. ‘Two experts -- Mr. Thomas and
Mr. Fuller -- stand ready to answer any detailed questions
about weights if you feel they are necessary.
Otherwise I think that response covered that.
I think Mr. Raymond asked, "How do we know what the
weights will be per tire?"
Nh
12
13
14
18
19
20
93
We have a statement that they will be limited such
that weights per tire will be less than those on ordinary
pickup trucks and that the multi-axle vehicles will all carry |
flotation tires. |
If you need, we stand ready to answer any questions. |
Another point that Mrs. Raymond made, if I under- !
stand correctly, her contention is that the monitors will |
|
protect only the property of the ranchers across whose |
property the fence will go.
That is not so. The monitors will be posted at
places where the potential is high for trespass, stoppages,
and what have you.
If I understand the applicant's contention correctly,
the Happy Acres will be one of those locations because it
may be so tempting for trespass.
In a comment she made about the advertising
promotional aspect of the applicant's operation, she mentione
casual visitors, people out driving who will be looking at
the fence. Such people are not affected by advertising or
promotion. They are there. Their numbers are assumed in
the traffic calculations.
The advertising and promotion affects those people
who specifically go to see the fence, travel to see it.
She mentioned the energy use and quoted the top
numbers for gasoline and jet fuel consumption that we gave.
I have said this, I believe, in my responses; and
I want to repeat that energy calculation was very, very much
a worst-case analysis. It is assumed that every one of the
10
11
12
22
23
24
|
visitors we listed counted would make a special trip to
see the fence; that they would not be driving somewhere else
on the same day.
In the calculations of air travel, commercial air
travel, we assumed that per passenger jet fuel usage, again
as a worst-case, because of less special flights made for |
carrying people who want to view the fence, those flights
would be going on anyway.
So in a way I am embarrassed about the numbers that
came out because they are so high because of our attempt
to be worst-case.
|
|
|
I think if one sat down and tried to figure out |
what percentage of this fuel is really chargeable, attributable
to the running fence, it would turn out to be a very, very |
much smaller number. |
Mrs. Raymond made another point about thé subdivision,
specific subdivision. I am not sure what she had in mind.
She cited the section on population and community
characteristics which discussed only as background trend
in the County as a whole, and I don't see the point in mention-
ing a specific subdivision as opposed to all the other
potential subdivisions that may go in in the next one, two,
five, or ten years. |
She mentioned that 10,000 visitors came to see the
Valley Curtain on the first day. I assume that was
visitors and not cars, which would mean that figure is
one-third of our peak Sunday number at 30 percent probabilities
so that that number would be about what we would estimate
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
aS a maximum for the early days of the project.
That number converged on one point, and the people
who were involved in that report: we have one letter in
the appendix exhibit that said there were no particular
problems at this number. The number we are talking about
will split over the whole network.
Mrs. Raymond asked what control monitors would
have over trespassers who refused to leave. They can
ask them to leave. If they don't, the monitors can call
on the two-way system, call on the on-duty police people
and have them there to take care of the problem.
Mrs. Raymond mentioned the rural residential
nature of her area in connection with our statement about
the view, and all we can do is reiterate that Happy Acres
is an approved subdivision, and at full development there
can be 10 homes between her and the view, between her and
the fence route.
She mentions again that there are hazards because
her home is at a viewpoint that we name. That is exactly
what we said.
She mentioned that the dump traffic would increase
greatly by September and that we use an April count which
was the last count that the Public Works Department gave
us on Monday.
Our number for Sunday all-day traffic on Meacham
was 1300 vehicles on the dump road one-way. That is versus
a 1500 number that Mr. Raymond quoted as having gotten as
kine of, I think, a worst-case analysis for him. So the
hm
10
1]
12
oss rT. So ee 96
numbers are very close together, and the difference would
not affect our conclusions.
It was at this point that she mentioned the
weight of cables, et cetera, and I have already responded
to that one.
Mrs. Payne read into the record the circumstance
on the Cotati letter against the proposal.
There was such a letter in our responses. I think
nothing more need be said.
Coming to Mr. Ronald Raymond, he mentioned the
Summary, Page 5, a five-fold increase in noise. That is
a statement quoted from the EIR. It is a matter for your
decision with respect to the use permit, not the adequacy
of the EIR.
He again mentioned the cable weight. He mentioned
fire runs of emergency vehicles. We have already tried to
answer that with respect to your questions.
He mentioned an apparent conflict in the Draft
EIR, statements about trashcans along stopping points
and no points for stopping, et cetera.
What the Draft EIR attempted to do -- and probably
we haven't made this clear to all readers -- is first state
where the potential stopping points are, assuming there is
no control, where it would be attractive for a motorist
to pull over and stop to take a long look at the fence or
take pictures of it. We then said that motorists would be
permitted, presumably permitted to stop only at certain
locations; and we specified along our road Type 2, and we
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
documented this with a map. I believe it was J.3 in the
EIR.
Clearly if the decisions were made by the CHP
and the Sheriff's Department that no stopping would be
allowed on the narrow road, then there would be no point
in putting trash containers at points along those roads.
So we see no internal inconsistencies in our statement about
stopping points and litter collection points.
Mr. Korty's comment: we thank him for his statement
of praise for the firm..
He asked about the costs, certain costs to the
County; and I think those questions have been covered very
well by your questions and the responses to them.
He asked questions about the bonding and the assets,
and these have been covered.
He raised the issue of the Williamson Act agreement
and raised the question of broader issues of land use in
open space, et cetera. And all I can do, since the question
is really the same as that of Mr. Raymond, is state this:
the Williamson Act contract have two aspects. This is my
understanding based on conversations with Mr. Fish.
One is whether the current landowners' agreement
with the County under the Williamson Act provisions prohibit
this proposed use; and the answer, as it was the opinion
of a member of County Counsel's staff, there is no such
provision.
The second ieeuel was the detrimental effects on
the preservation of agriculture in the County; and we have
10
11
12
13
14
m5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
98
answered that in the growth-inducing impact summary of the
report and the economic section by
the project will not induce growth
at current rates with the existing
growth.
saying it appears that
beyond that expected
pressures for developmenta
Finally, according to my notes, he mentioned the
fence as a form of visual pollution inflicted on the whole
community, and we again say this is a matter of judgment.
And we have tried to stay away from it.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN:
remarks?
Does that conclude your
DR. COLE: It concludes the notes I have on comments
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN:
that the Board has pero we close the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER MEESE:
question. I think it should
As far as the adequacy portion of it, it is a
Are there any final questions
I would like to ask one brief
be answered Yes or No.
pretty comprehensive traffic study; but apparently one of
your basic assumptions is there would be no attempt to
maximize visitors to the fence.
that you used.
That is one of the assumptions
For some reason subsequently there was a determina-
tion to attempt to maximize visitation to the fence.
impact would that have on your study?
~ DR. COLE: As I recall the way in which these
What
traffic figures were developed, they are independent of
that consideration.
COMMISSIONER MEESE:
Thank you.
tl
12
13
14
mee Co =
|
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Your second question, though,
wasn't answered.
What impact would it have if visitor viewing was
maximized?
Maybe I missed the point.
DR. COLE: I think our traffic numbers are based
on the assumption that there would be attempt to maximize.
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Are there any questions?
If not, I will close the public hearing.
We are open for discussion among the Board.
The chair is ready for a motion.
COMMISSIONER MEESE: Mr. Chairman, I had a few
reservations, and they were basically rather minor; so
would move that we certify the EIR adequacy.
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER TORR: Does it include all the
additions?
CHAIRMAN KJELDSEN: Yes, it automatically does.
We have a motion to certify the adequacy of the
EIR. Discussion on that motion?
(No response.)
It's been moved and seconded. Hearing no discusSion
g ’
will you call the roll?
STAFF MEMBER JOHNSON: Commissioner Realy?
COMMISSIONER REALY: Aye.
STAFF MEMBER JOHNSON: Commissioner Swenson?
COMMISSIONER SWENSON: Yes.
STAFF MEMBER JOHNSON: Commissioner Meese?
ate
us eA ee
SERENE Meena
wo Doe eee eum :
UMS GSH eee
SS A Ne COM eR a ea ae
pe sp aan tents ne -
; : ) nit
SSAA E Sinan aE
eee es
a Sau CaN ue
SU REO eee
anon nea Teo
NY ;
oe minh
; aa
eae T 4 t j
Aa UU Beate
uate Vana
s
oe
peg sgh t
: Se eee
aE rare Esha Mea
a 4 ait ; ene pal eeu ia Lew
ices be tee A sai
; Ta aa trl A
Zoe Bite Dine A ER a Pity BiH
PERSE er ee a
; = 1D Hae 4 so rte ty aD uA ty iif Nh ey i nea 3
: ; oi 1} : 4
Des a ae Past
ry
U
a
uPa
=
Eh be
- ay ik Y
? i
cic
Me
sah
0 ee eh ane
re at
Fu
ite
Pa
"
Hage
tl
eT)
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11